The bipartisan Iraq Study Group (ISG) is due to release its report later today, a day after the new secretary for defence, Robert Gates, told Congress he did not believe the US was currently winning the war in Iraq.

ABC News said it had received leaked extracts of the 142-page ISG report, titled The Way Forward: A New Approach, and containing a raft of recommendations, some of them contrary to current US policy.

Among the 79 separate conclusions is that Washington should shift the "primary mission" of its troops in Iraq towards a supporting role.

"It's clear the Iraqi government will need US assistance for some time to come, especially in carrying out new security responsibilities," ABC quoted the report as saying.

"Yet the United States must not make open-ended commitments to keep large numbers of troops deployed in Iraq.

"The most important questions about Iraq's future are now the responsibility of Iraqis," the report adds. "The United States must adjust its role to encourage the Iraqi people to take control."



The committee, co-chaired by former secretary of state James Baker and former congressman Lee Hamilton, says all US forces not involved in training and support for the Iraqi military could leave the country by "the first quarter of 2008".

According to the Washington Post, quoting an official familiar with the report, the ISG also recommends Mr Bush should apply pressure on Iraq's government by threatening to reduce economic and military support if it fails to meet specific targets on security.

The 10-member group - which, ABC said, unanimously agreed on every point - also call for direct talks with Syria and Iran, as well as fresh efforts to deal with the Palestinian issue.

"The United States cannot achieve its goals in the Middle East unless it deals with the Israeli-Arab conflict and regional instability," ABC quoted the report as saying, adding that talks should include Israel, Lebanon and Palestinian leaders who recognise Israel's right to exist.

While Mr Bush appears as keen as the ISG to begin withdrawing US troops from Iraq, he is likely to be far less eager to deal with Iran and Syria, something he has thus far rejected.

But with violence in Iraq still seemingly out of control and the political pressure mounting after last month's Republican defeats in the midterm elections, the Bush administration is likely to be more open than previously to new ideas.

Illustrating this, Mr Gates - himself a former ISG panel member - marked a sharp break with his predecessor, Donald Rumsfeld - by telling Congress yesterday that "all options are on the table" when it comes to Iraq.

He was twice asked if he thought the US was winning, replying both times: "No, sir."

The former CIA director said US forces would continue to support the Iraqi military, but said this could be done "with a dramatically smaller number of US forces than are there today", while arguing that total withdrawal would be a mistake.

"Developments in Iraq over the next year or two will, I believe, shape the entire Middle East and greatly influence global geopolitics for many years to come," he said.

"The United States will face a slowly but steadily improving situation in Iraq and in the region, or will face the very real risk and possible reality of a regional conflagration."

The former head of the CIA was asked by Senators at his confirmation hearing: "We are not winning the war in Iraq. Is that correct?"

Mr Gates said: "That is my view. Yes sir."

He was then asked: "Therefore the status quo is not acceptable?"

He responded: "That is correct sir."

Mr Gates went on to warn that if Iraq is not stabilised in a year or two, the whole Middle East could implode.

He said: "There needs to be a change in our approach in Iraq. In my view all options are on the table."

The Iraq Study Group is now due to report, and they are expected to call for the biggest change yet in US strategy in Iraq, recommending a gradual pull-out of combat troops over the next 18 months, although they are not likely to fix a timetable.

It is thought the report will link that withdrawal to stronger efforts from Iraq's government to end the violence and recommend talking to Iran and Syria directly to help stop the killing.

Paul Bremer

The former head of the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq admitted in January 2006:

"It [the invasion] was a much tougher job than I think I expected it to be... we really didn't see the insurgency coming."

Zalmay Khalilzad

Contradicting the usually upbeat rhetoric, the US ambassador in Iraq said in March: "We have opened a Pandora's box". And unless the violence abated, Iraq would "make Taliban Afghanistan look like child's play".

Jack Straw

The former foreign secretary, one of the cheerleaders for the war, said in September: "The current situation is dire. I think many mistakes were made after the military action - there is no question about it - by the United States administration."

Gen Sir Richard Dannatt

The British General admitted in an interview in October: "I don't say that the difficulties we are experiencing round the world are caused by our presence in Iraq but undoubtedly our presence in Iraq exacerbates [them]."

Richard Perle

Regarded as one of the intellectual godfathers of the war, Perle changed his tack in November, admitting that "huge mistakes were made" in the invasion of Iraq. "The levels of brutality we've seen are truly horrifying," he added.

Ken Adelman

Last month, the noted neoconservative said: "The national security team... turned out to be among the most incompetent in the post-war era. Not only did each of them have enormous flaws, but together they were deadly."

Donald Rumsfeld

A memo from the hardline former defence secretary revealed this week that he had been looking for a change of tactics. "In my view, it is time for a major adjustment... what US forces are doing in Iraq is not working well enough..."

Robert Gates

Yesterday, Mr Rumsfeld's proposed successor was asked at a Senate hearing whether the US was winning the war in Iraq. "No, sir," he replied. And he warned that the situation could lead to a "regional conflagration".

Tony Blair ...

George Bush ...

The Senate panel endorsed Gates' nomination by a 21-0 vote after a daylong hearing, and now it appears very likely that he will be confirmed by Senate within this week.

In a hearing that centers on the Iraq policy, Gates said the country is not winning the war in Iraq and risks regional disaster in one or two years.

The view is apparently not shared by U.S. President George W. Bush, who said as recently as October that the United States was winning the war.

Gates gave no timeline for ending the conflict in Iraq, but repeatedly referenced "the next year or two" when discussing U.S. options.

"Our course over the next year or two will determine whether the American and Iraqi people and the next president of the United States will face a slowly but steadily improving situation in Iraq and in the region or will face the very real risk and possible reality of a regional conflagration," he said.

Situation in Iraq by that time will "greatly influence global geopolitics for many years to come," Gates noted.

The former CIA director said his greatest worry is that "if we mishandle the next year or two and if we leave Iraq in chaos, is that a variety of regional powers will become involved in Iraq, and we will have a regional conflict on our hands."

Gates also said if confirmed, he would quickly consult military commanders in the field and politicians back home to determine the best course of action in Iraq, but "I will give most serious consideration to the views of those who lead our men and women in uniform."

Before the hearing, Bush said in a statement that he hopes for "speedy confirmation so he (Gates) can get sworn in and get to work."

Gates was nominated on Nov. 8 to replace current Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, two days after Democrats took control of both houses of Congress in midterm elections dominated by concerns about the Iraq war.

Gates, 63, currently president of Texas A&M University, had served as national security adviser and CIA director during President George H.W. Bush's administration.

Referring to the trial as "this new comedy", Saddam told he judge he could "do whatever you want" in response to the boycott.

The letter, handed to the press by Saddam's lawyers, referred to him as "president of the republic and commander in chief of the mujahedeen (holy warriors) armed forces".

The current hearing, in which Saddam and six former members of his regime face charges of war crimes and genocide, is separate to the trial which saw Saddam sentenced to death last month for crimes against humanity, linked to an earlier massacre in the Iraqi town of Dujail.

Much of the testimony in the current trial has been harrowing accounts by Kurdish survivors of massacres the prosecution claims were carried out by Saddam's regime.

Yesterday, a Kurdish teacher described the death of 40 fellow villagers, including his mother and two daughters, in a chemical attack in 1988.

"My wife was lying on her back, holding my two daughters - Shovan, six months, and Tabga, four years, tight in her arms," Abdulla Qadir Abdulla, 58, told the court, saying his wife had only survived because she took an antidote.

The charges on which Saddam has already been sentenced to hang were chosen for the first trial as they were considered relatively straightforward and simple to prove.

You can understand, if not condone, the way the political and media establishment let itself be browbeaten by Mr. Bush in his post-9/11 political prime. What's amazing is the extent to which insiders still cringe before a lame duck with a 60 percent disapproval rating.

Look at what seems to have happened to the Iraq Study Group, whose mission statement says that it would provide an "independent assessment." If press reports are correct, the group did nothing of the sort. Instead, it watered down its conclusions and recommendations, trying to come up with something Mr. Bush wouldn't reject out of hand.

In particular, says Newsweek, the report "will set no timetables or call for any troop reductions." All it will do is "suggest that the president could, not should, begin to withdraw forces in the vaguely defined future."

And all this self-abasement is for naught. Senior Bush aides, Newsweek tells us, are "dismissive, even condescending" toward James Baker, the Bush family consigliere who is the dominant force in the study group, and the report. Of course they are. That's how bullies always treat their hangers-on.

Even now, it seems, the wise men of Washington can't bring themselves to face up to two glaringly obvious truths.

The first is that Americans are fighting and dying in Iraq for no reason.

It's true that terrible things will happen when U.S. forces withdraw. Mr. Bush was attacking a straw man when he mocked those who think we can make a "graceful exit" from Iraq. Everyone I know realizes that the civil war will get even worse after we're gone, and that there will probably be a bloody bout of ethnic cleansing that effectively partitions the country into hostile segments.

But nobody - not even Donald Rumsfeld, it turns out - thinks we're making progress in Iraq. So the same terrible things that would happen if we withdrew soon will still happen if we delay that withdrawal for two, three or more years. The only difference is that we'll sacrifice many more American lives along the way.

The second truth is that the war will go on all the same, unless something or someone forces Mr. Bush to change course.

During his recent trip to Vietnam, Mr. Bush was asked whether there were any lessons from that conflict for Iraq. His response: "We'll succeed unless we quit."

It was a bizarre answer given both the history of the Vietnam War and the facts on the ground in Iraq, but it makes perfect sense given what we know about Mr. Bush's character. He has never been willing to own up to mistakes, however trivial. If he were to accept the failure of his adventure in Iraq, he would be admitting, at least implicitly, to having made the mother of all mistakes.

So Mr. Bush will keep sending other men's children off to fight his war. And he'll always insist that Iraq would have been a great victory if only his successors had shared his steely determination.

Does this mean that we're doomed to at least two more years of bloody futility? Not necessarily. Last month the public delivered a huge vote of no confidence in Mr. Bush and his war. He's still the commander in chief, but the new majority in Congress can put a lot of pressure on him to at least begin a withdrawal.

I'm worried, however, that Democrats may have counted on the Iraq Study Group to provide them with political cover. Now that the study group has apparently wimped out, will the Democrats do the same?

Well, here's a question for those who might be tempted, yet again, to shy away from a confrontation with Mr. Bush over Iraq: How do you ask a man to be the last to die for a bully's ego?