US Warns 'surge' May Take Time

The US defence secretary, Robert Gates, today said it was unclear how long the "temporary" increase in US troop numbers in Iraq announced by George Bush would last.

Led by Mr Gates and the US secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, Bush officials worked to persuade the newly Democratic-controlled Congress to accept the president's plans to deploy an extra 21,500 troops as the last best chance for reversing Iraq's slide.

Both insisted that Mr Bush's plan will put more pressure on Iraqis to take over their own security, but they faced fierce opposition from majority-party Democrats and some Republicans in Congress.

Senator Joseph Biden, the chairman of the influential Senate foreign relations committee, called the Iraq strategy "a tragic mistake", while Senate Democratic majority leader Harry Reid said: "In choosing to escalate the war, the president virtually stands alone."

Later, the Democrats' Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, said he expected enough Republicans would support a resolution opposing the troops increase for it to be passed.

Such a resolution, which is non-binding, would need 60 out of 100 votes to clear Republican obstructions. The Democrats hold 51 Senate seats.

Ms Rice meanwhile followed Mr Bush's vow to "interrupt the flow of support" to Iraqi insurgents from Iran and Syria with a warning to the two countries to "end their destabilising behaviour" in the region. Her comments came hours after US soldiers stormed Iranian government offices in the Iraqi city of Irbil.

Mr Gates, who replaced Donald Rumsfeld last month, said the US should know soon whether the predominantly Shia Iraqi government was fulfilling its part in the new strategy by increasing the strength of their own forces and cracking down on Shia death squads.

"There would be opportunities to go back to the Iraqis and point out where they did not meet requirements and find a way forward," said Mr Gates.

But his comments will do little to assuage the fears of an increasingly sceptical American public that the US is sinking deeper into a military quagmire, with the war about to enter its fourth year and more than 3,000 US troops dead.

A poll published today showed that Americans overwhelmingly opposed sending more US forces to Iraq.

The AP-Ipsos poll of 1,002 adults found 70% opposed sending more troops. The same proportion believed the extra forces would fail to help stabilise the situation there, while 60% thought it was unlikely a stable, democratic Iraqi government would ever be established.

Almost two-thirds (65%) of those surveyed said they did not believe it was right for the US to have invaded Iraq. Two years ago, two-thirds of Americans backed the invasion.

A contrite-sounding Mr Bush last night told Americans he would send an extra 21,500 US troops to Iraq to help the 132,000 already there quell sectarian violence in Baghdad and take on Sunni insurgents in the western province of Anbar.

The president said that, unlike past plans, his new strategy would work because of the extra manpower.

"This time, we will have the force levels we need to hold the areas that have been cleared," he said.

Mr Bush claimed Washington had secured a new commitment from the Iraqi prime minister, Nuri al-Maliki, that there would be no political interference when the enhanced US forces took on the militias responsible for the violence.

These include the followers of the radical cleric Moqtada al-Sadr. Until now, Mr Maliki has been reluctant to tackle Mr Sadr's Mahdi army or allow US forces to do so. Mr Maliki's government relies on Mr Sadr's supporters in parliament.

But Tony Blair's former envoy to Iraq, Sir Jeremy Greenstock, bemoaned the lack of a diplomatic dimension to the Bush plan.

Sir Jeremy said the extra troops were necessary but insufficient to resolve the situation.

He told BBC Radio 4's The World At One programme: "I don't think it's enough on its own. I do not think that he has put his finger on a solution for the problem.

"A surge in the number of troops is necessary. I think Baghdad needs to be focused on, but other things also have to be brought into this to fill the gap which is represented by the failure of the government in the green zone in Baghdad to have any real effect on the sectarian politics."

Sir Jeremy criticised Mr Bush for failing to properly address the role of Iran and Syria in the conflict - and for rejecting the Iraq Study Group's proposal to hold direct talks with the two countries.

Asked if Iraq was beyond saving, he said: "We are coming close to that moment unless there is a big heave with a comprehensive policy, and I feel now that president Bush has missed the opportunity."