US: As extra troops fail to stem the bloodshed, the US may be forced to exit Iraq, write Edward Luce and Demetri Sevastopulo in Washington
George W Bush has long resisted calls to set a deadline for the withdrawal of US military forces from Iraq. Equally, the president has been repeatedly compelled to reassure Nouri al-Maliki, Iraq's prime minister, that no such deadline exists.
Mr Maliki's doubts appear well-founded. Earlier this month, Zalmay Khalilzad, the US ambassador to Iraq, warned that the Iraqi government had only two months or so left to reduce the sectarian bloodshed in Baghdad and other cities.
Mr Khalilzad's comments were echoed by John Warner, the Republican chairman of the Senate armed services committee, who said: "In two or three months, if this thing hasn't come to fruition, and if this level of violence is not under control . . . it's a responsibility of our government to determine: 'Is there a change of course that we should take?'"
However, Mr Maliki's principal worries stem from the growing number of leaks coming out of the Iraq Study Group (ISG), an unwieldy collection of experts led by James Baker, the former secretary of state, and Lee Hamilton, a former Democratic congressman.
The group was set up this year by Congress - and with the blessing of the White House - to recommend ways out of the morass in Iraq.
Both Mr Baker - who is a Bush family loyalist, having served in the administration of Mr Bush's father between 1988 and 1992 - and Mr Hamilton have declared publicly that time is running out for Mr Maliki to make progress in disarming the sectarian militias allegedly operating from within his government.
The bipartisan group will delay producing its final report until after the mid-term congressional elections on November 7th, which polls say could result in a Democratic-controlled House of Representatives for the first time since 1994. Many Democrats have called for a deadline to withdraw troops.
Growing confusion about whether the Bush administration is considering a radical change of course in Iraq follows a significant flaring up of sectarian killings in the last three weeks, in spite of the four-month-old strategy of pouring more US troops into Baghdad and other centres of violence.
The level of US forces in Iraq has risen from 126,000 in late May to 141,000 this month, following the surge in killings since February. So far this month, almost 60 American soldiers have lost their lives. Iraqi deaths have risen to a rate of 100 a day - almost double the level of fatalities in spring.
The intensification of violence has heightened concern in Washington over Mr Maliki's ability to get a grip on the situation. Many question whether the prime minister, who is a Shia, has any real influence over the Shia militias causing most of the bloodshed.
The Bush administration's Iraqi woes, which pollsters say are the chief reason for the Republican party's plummeting poll numbers, were exacerbated last week by a study published in the Lancet, the British medical journal, which concluded that more than 650,000 people had died because of the invasion and ensuing violence.
An ISG panel member said most experts believed that number was exaggerated, but added many participants felt the number of Iraqi dead was much higher than the government's estimates of 30,000-50,000.
The ISG is considering two principal recommendations: first, to concentrate US forces more effectively on stabilising the violence in Baghdad. And, second, for a redeployment of US troops to nearby countries where they would be used against regional terrorist threats, including in Iraq.
In an interview with the Financial Times yesterday, Mr Hamilton said the group had received "scores and scores" of recommendations but would not meet to discuss them for several weeks. "We do feel pressure because people are anxious for us to come forward with it," he said.
Mr Bush has consistently resisted providing a timeline for withdrawal, saying his decision would be based on "conditions on the ground". But it is clear even to supporters of the administration that its policy of "standing US forces down as they [Iraqi forces] stand up" is failing. - (LA Times/Washington Post service)