Editorial

Tonight, President George W. Bush will tell his countrymen he is in agreement with his senior commander in Iraq, General David H. Petraeus. The "surge" he ordered earlier this year will not be compromised. It goes without saying that he will not say this without repeating the "evidence" given to Congress and the Senate by the general and by the US Ambassador to Iraq, in particular the general's assertion that the military objectives are, "in large part", being met.

That evidence also included an expression of confidence in the way the surge was working and the general's insistence that the situation should not be compromised by bringing American troops back, yet. The military objectives were, "in large measure", being met. More time was needed. Yet, time is what Americans hate. Long periods of internal security duty are not their preferred option, which is for their troops to move in, achieve their objectives and move out again.

Strong elements in the Senate audience disagreed with Gen. Petraeus, none more strongly than Barack Hussein Obama who was opposed to the war way back in 2003; he called it "a disastrous foreign policy mistake". The House of Representatives and the Senate can be formidable bodies. The founding fathers meant them to be.

The war in Iraq has entered the political arena of the presidential elections. It is bound to create divisions between the two political parties that will, in all probability, scar the nation's psyche in the same way it was scarred 33 years ago in the wake of the Vietnam war.

The Democrats and some Republicans appear to have come to the conclusion that an anti-war stance will work to their benefit, politically, but they know they have to tread a fine line. Americans have a strong measure of respect for their troops and, even if they oppose the war, they would not take kindly to attitudes that are so defeatist they could endanger still further the lives of their soldiers. These have enough to be getting on with.

For his part, President Bush sees his mission as commander-in-chief in a wider perspective. The failure to follow up the swift and brilliant military success of 2003 that ousted Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein and saw Baghdad fall to the coalition, with a coherent post-war strategy, has meant that Iraq has taken on an even more strategic significance.

To leave Iraq at this moment in time, when Iran gives every impression of wishing to enter the vacuum that will be created by the Americans' withdrawal and before Iraqi troops and policemen are fully prepared to take on the security of their country, is unthinkable for the President. It may indeed save American lives but it would also mean that more than 3,000 American soldiers would have died in vain.

This is why he will be insisting that there will not be any significant withdrawal of troops for the present - and for the present read until next July - and even then the number of troops still in Iraq will be at the pre-surge level of 160,000. The United States, he will say, must remain focused and he, for one, has no intention of being rumbled by political considerations.

Even as he sticks to his determined path, Mr Bush knows that the military surge must run in parallel with a diplomatic surge and a huge improvement in the Iraqi government's performance. The turning point will occur when this improvement translates into efficient governance.