Bush's tough choices on Iraq

By Roger Hardy
BBC Middle East analyst

President Bush stands at a crossroads over Iraq

President George W Bush has insisted at an end-of-year press conference that the United States would not be intimidated by events in the Middle East.

It would take time, he said, for the ideology of liberty to triumph over the ideology of hate.

On Iraq, the president said he had not made up his mind about a short-term increase in US troops, one of several proposals the administration is considering.

But as the policy-makers in Washington rethink their strategy, experts are warning Iraq is rapidly becoming a failing state.

Should the United States send more troops, or start withdrawing the ones that are there?

Should it talk to Iran and Syria, or shun them as spoilers?

Should it stick with Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki or look for someone better able to take the tough decisions?

So far, the intense debate under way in Washington has failed to produce a clear consensus.

The signs are that the president is resisting anything that smacks of defeat.

He still prefers to think in terms of policy adjustment rather than policy U-turn.

'Fragmented state'

One of the strongest critiques of his Middle East policy comes in a report, published on Tuesday by a respected NGO, the International Crisis Group.

The ICG warns that, unless the administration makes a clean break with past policy, Iraq will collapse into a failed and fragmented state, with dire consequences for regional stability.

Baghdad's current self-styled national unity government is, says the report, nothing of the sort.

It is simply one party to what the report calls the "current dirty war".

The report puts its finger on what may be the central flaw in all the proposals currently under discussion.

In the absence of a strong central state, there can be no real national reconciliation and therefore no political solution to the violence.

What Iraq desperately needs, the ICG argues, are national leaders.

In their absence, decisions made in Washington or London may in the end prove irrelevant.