Long-waited reports by America's top general and its ambassador in Iraq seem designed to allow Bush more time for his strategy in the war-wracked nation, writes Salah Hemeid Ending frenzied speculation, General David Petraeus, the top commander of the American forces in Iraq, told Congress Monday that the military objectives of the Bush administration's troop surge strategy in Iraq "are in large measure being met", but he cited little signs of political reconciliation. He also noted that there has been an overall decline in violence and said, "the level of security incidents has declined in eight of the past 12 weeks, with the level of incidents in the past two weeks the lowest since June of 2006." Relying on colourful charts and graphs to illustrate his points, the four-star general conceded that the military gains have been uneven in the months since President George W Bush added an additional 30,000 troops to the war in January. He cited the Sunni-dominated Anbar province as an example of former Sunni insurgents turning against Al-Qaeda terrorists, adding, "we are seeing similar actions in other locations as well." Petraeus also said the Iraqi armed forces are slowly becoming more competent and gradually "taking on more responsibility for their security." As a result, Petraeus told the Congressional hearing and a nationwide television audience, the US by next summer should be able to reduce its troop strength there to about 130,000, or what it was before the recent increase. He emphasised that the troop reduction won't jeopardise the security gains his troops have fought so hard to achieve. Petraeus, who remained calm and unemotional during the whole testimony despite occasional abusing shouts from the audience, concluded that the US can achieve success in Iraq, "although doing so will be neither quick nor easy." Speaking after Petraeus, US Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker said he believed it was possible for the US to see its goals achieved in Iraq. He said security was attainable, but it would not be achieved quickly, warning that the path would be punctuated by setbacks. In his testimony, Crocker said 2006 was a "bad year for Iraq. The country came close to unravelling politically, economically and in security terms. 2007 has brought improvement." Although Crocker said "a secure, stable, democratic Iraq, at peace with its neighbours, is attainable" he acknowledged that Iraq is now "a traumatised society" and will remain so for a long time. Petraeus's and Crocker's testimonies came at a crucial time in the war, with the Democratic-controlled Congress pressing for troop withdrawals and the Bush administration hoping to prevent wholesale Republican defections. Bush and his political allies have worked forcefully in recent weeks to shore up Republican support. The testimonies of Petraeus and Crocker could also help shape upcoming congressional decisions on the much- needed funding for the Iraq war. Even before presenting the report, leading Democrats in Congress assailed its findings as wrong or dismissed them as a White House publicity stunt. Some of them described the general and the envoy as good people shackled to a bad policy. House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Tom Lantos said President Bush's policies in Iraq had "created a fiasco". Lantos also called for a dramatic change of course, and said the US needed to get out of Iraq immediately. The White House denied efforts to sway Petraeus. It said it has played no part in shaping, writing or even reviewing the testimony the general presented to Congress. The Shia-led Iraqi government welcomed its conclusion. "The report is professional and positive and reflects the real problems on the ground," said Ali Al-Dabagh, a spokesman for Prime Minister Nuri Al-Maliki. The Iraqi premier himself pre-empted the report by telling the parliament that his government has stopped Iraq sliding into civil war. He also said violence had fallen 75 per cent in the restive provinces of Baghdad and Anbar, and that 14,000 militants linked to Al-Qaeda had renounced violence. But he warned that Iraq's armed forces were not ready to take responsibility for security from the US-led coalition. The remarks came hours before Petraeus and Crocker testified to Congress. By and large, Monday's testimonies will certainly allow the Bush administration to buy time, using the four-star general to keep the Democrats and an increasing section of the public from boxing the president into a precipitate withdrawal from Iraq. Indeed, the overriding imperative for Bush these past eight months has been to buy time for both the surge to work and for the Iraqis to get their act together. Many in Washington believe President Bush just wants to get through 2008 so he can leave the withdrawal to his successor. Although the administration has presented a united front, senior officials remain split over whether Bush's strategy will work in the long term. Bush gambled that a "surge" of 30,000 troops in the streets of Baghdad and the western province of Anbar would establish enough security to give "breathing space" to Iraq's sectarian leaders to find common ground. Press reports suggested that top American generals are not in agreement over the surge strategy and many, like Admiral William J Fallon, commander of the Central Command and Petraeus's superior hold contrasting visions of America's future in Iraq. Amid the uncertainty, key questions remain about the best outcome Washington can hope for at this point. How long should the troop build-up last? Should Washington stand by Al-Maliki or seek another leader? What are the hidden risks of the emerging alliance with Sunni tribal leaders? Under a new plan forged by Petraeus, Sunni tribes are joining the American and Iraqi troops in the fight against Al-Qaeda which the general believes is key to the transformation. But serious questions are being raised about this tactic and whether it won't create further serious problems such as creating new sectarian militias while trying to combat the existing ones. London's Sunday Times has revealed that American forces are paying Sunni insurgents hundreds of thousands of dollars in cash to switch sides and help them defeat Al-Qaeda. The paper said its reporters witnessed first hand the enormous sums of cash changing hands. One sheikh in a town south of Baghdad was given $38,000 and promised a further $189,000 over three months to drive Al-Qaeda fighters from a nearby camp. The tactic might have boosted the efforts of American forces to restore some order to war- torn provinces around Baghdad in the run-up to Petraeus's report but the question remains how a mercenary force could be turned into a constructive means in chaotic Iraq. One point of agreement on Iraq, however, is that long-term security hinges on reconciliation among the country's ethnic and sectarian groups. Crocker cited small steps -- a recent agreement among top Shia, Sunni and Kurdish leaders to worker harder and more closely together, and Al-Maliki's grudging acceptance of the US military's recruitment and arming of former Sunni insurgents to fight Al-Qaeda. It remains to be seen if the much talked about national reconciliation will finally come through. Meanwhile, fresh polls reflect significant public opposition to the war. A USA Today Gallup poll taken in the past few days found that 60 per cent of those surveyed favour setting a timetable for removing troops. Only 35 per cent favour keeping the troops in Iraq until the situation improves. A BBC/ABC News opinion poll in Iraq suggested ordinary Iraqis have a damning verdict on the US surge. According to this latest poll, in key areas in Iraq -- security and the conditions for political dialogue, reconstruction and economic development -- between 67 and 70 per cent of Iraqis said the surge has made things worse. Petraeus's four-star credibility and Croker's outstanding diplomatic career might have bought President Bush more time to pursue his military offensive in Iraq, but sometime soon Bush has to face reality and make up his mind about how long the American troops will stay in Iraq and for what purpose.
