Bush on Iraq: has realism sunk in?

US President George Bush on Wednesday gave a keynote speech on his Iraq strategy when he addressed a naval academy in Annapolis, Maryland. Mr Bush struck a more realistic note while speaking, and emphasised the progress he claimed was made in the training of Iraqi security forces that are slowly replacing American troops in nationwide operations. His speech was accompanied by the publication of Victory in Iraq, a 35-page document by the National Security Council on its strategy in Iraq.

Mr Bush has said he will not accept "anything less than complete victory" in Iraq and refused to set an "artificial deadline" to withdraw US troops, saying it was "not a plan for victory".

However, he did emphasise that a lot of territory had been handed back to the Iraqi security forces and that the Iraqis were slowly taking over from the US military. He said: "We will increasingly move out of Iraqi cities, reduce the number of bases from which we operate, and conduct fewer patrols and convoys."

The President acknowledged that not everything had gone smoothly in the training of the military. "The training of Iraqi troops is an enormous task and it hasn't always gone smoothly. We faced some setbacks in standing up a capable Iraqi security force and their performance is still uneven in some areas. Yet many of those forces have made real gains over the past year," he said.

President Bush admitted there would be violence in Iraq "for many years" and that US troops would only be able to withdraw as local forces gained competence.

"These decisions about troop levels will be driven by the conditions on the ground in Iraq and the good judgment of our commanders, not by artificial timetables set by politicians in Washington," he said.

While Mr Bush is absolutely right in rejecting calls for an immediate US troop withdrawal from Iraq, there is no doubt that domestically he is in deep trouble over his Iraqi policy and this speech was an attempt to counter the unpopularity he is facing at home. Critics have long argued that Mr Bush is out of touch with what is going on in Iraq and that he has in effect lost control of the debate on Iraq.

Things have certainly not gone well in Iraq - largely because of American mismanagement in the aftermath of Saddam Hussein's overthrow - and Mr Bush does not want his legacy to be shaped by a failure in Iraq. So far 2,100 US troops have been killed in Iraq and 16,000 wounded, and the financial cost of the war on the American taxpayer amounts to about $6 billion a month. Furthermore, about 30,000 Iraqi civilians and 3,600 troops have died in the war. The President clearly needs an exit strategy, but there are certainly no easy answers.

Mr Bush is even losing support among his own moderate Republican supporters - his approval ratings among this group have fallen 24 points since August, to 61 per cent. According to a CNN/Gallup poll 52 per cent of Americans believe the US should completely pull out of Iraq within a year.

So, does this speech and the publication of a new strategy document signal any change in the Bush administration's Iraq policy? Harry Reid, the leader of the Democrats in the Senate, said the President's speech was "recycled... tired rhetoric", and that the President had "once again missed an opportunity to lay out a real strategy for success in Iraq that will bring our troops safely home".

The American press, on the other hand, was divided over the significance of the President's speech. Liberal newspapers said Mr Bush was out of touch with reality while conservative newspapers praised the President.

I am not sure that Mr Bush's speech marks a significant shift in his administration's Iraq policy. The President said that victory in Iraq would come "when the terrorists and Saddamists can no longer threaten Iraq's democracy, when the Iraqi security forces can provide for the safety of their own citizens, and when Iraq is not a safe-haven for terrorists to plot new attacks on our nation". This is certainly true, but is there anything particularly new in such a declaration?

It is well known that the US never intended to remain in Iraq indefinitely and that American troops would be withdrawn as soon as the Iraqis are able to cater for their own security needs. However, it is also true that Mr Bush was more realistic than usual about the war. He acknowledged that the war would not end quickly and that there had been some setbacks in both the training and the performance of the Iraqi security forces.

As expected, Mr Bush said nothing about his other whole series of failures surrounding the war: the case for war made by his administration, the complete absence of any post-war planning (the biggest scandal) and the fact that not enough troops were sent to police the country, to name a few.

I don't know whether it would have made a difference had Mr Bush admitted these failures - with the 2006 congressional elections less than a year away it could have been too much of a risk - but one wonders whether the President at least understands that very serious mistakes were committed by his team. Mr Bush's refusal to sack those responsible for the Iraq fiasco - for example Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld - is beyond belief.

In spite of all his failures in Iraq, Mr Bush is still right to insist that American troops must stay put. I believe that the President could have done a better job in his speech at convincing the American public on the need for the military to stay in Iraq. Perhaps he should have admitted his mistakes - and explained that whether or not one agrees with the decision to invade Iraq and with the post-war conduct has nothing to do with the question of the troops remaining in the country.

The bottom line is that there is too much at risk by a US withdrawal. The Iraqi security forces are not yet ready to take over from the Americans and such a retreat would result in the terrorists taking over the country. It would be a huge victory for militant Islam and a jihadist-run Iraq would be a threat to all its Arab neighbours and a destabilising factor. Iraq would become a failed state and more Iraqis would die, not less. More terrorism would be exported and America would be regarded as an unreliable partner.

There is no doubt that the cost of America remaining in Iraq is high, but surely the cost of getting out at this stage is even higher. Perhaps this is what Mr Bush should have emphasised.