(AFP) – Sep 11, 2007

WASHINGTON (AFP) — US President George W. Bush on Thursday is expected to announce that 30,000 soldiers could return home next year in an address to Americans on the divisive issue of US troop levels in war-torn Iraq.

Bush's nationally televised speech follows two days of testimony to lawmakers this week by the top US military commander in Iraq, General David Petraeus, who warned an early withdrawal would have "devastating" consequences.

The Iraq war is a pivotal issue for the Bush administration, which has urged more time for the current "surge" strategy boosting troops to 160,000 from its prior level of around 130,000 earlier this year.

Bush is expected to say that the "surge" could be trimmed by July 2008, when just six months remain of his presidency, leaving the next stage of the conflict up to his successor amid a heated race for the White House.

The US president, who is to speak for around 15 minutes Thursday at 9:00 pm (Friday 0100 GMT), has long vowed to base his decisions about Iraq on the recommendations of military leaders on the ground.

But more than four years after the US-led invasion, Americans see an Iraq gripped by violence, sectarian strife and political corruption -- far from the ideal model of democracy in the Middle East that Bush had touted.

Anger is also rising over the human and material cost of the war, with more than 3,700 US soldiers and tens of thousands of Iraqis killed since March 2003 and half a trillion dollars spent.

Sixty-one percent of nearly 2,700 US adults surveyed online last month by the Harris Poll group said they felt Bush was "too eager" when he sent US troops into Iraq in March 2003, while two-thirds gave Bush bad marks for his handling of the conflict over the past few months.

According to another poll by ABC News and the Washington Post, 55 percent want to see troops come home by next spring.

If Bush does not replace the 30,000 extra troops currently in Iraq as part of the "surge," he will not actually be reducing troop levels but only restoring them to the same level as 2007 numbers.

Petraeus told Congress, where Democratic opponents of Bush hold a majority, that US forces could continue to withdraw depending on conditions after July 2008, but that any pullout before March would be "premature."

Democrats blasted Petraeus's assessment and accused him of plotting a long-term US military presence.

"It sounds to me as if General Petraeus is presenting a plan for at least a 10-year, high-level US presence in Iraq," said House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi said following talks with Bush.

"I told the president that I thought on Thursday night when he spoke to the nation, that he should give an explanation for why our country should have to continue to make that commitment," Pelosi said.

"No matter how successful our troops are, still the Iraqi government refuses to make the political change necessary to end sectarian strife," she said, urging a "responsible redeployment" of most US forces out of Iraq.

Bush is likely to repeat his assertion that US forces are necessary in Iraq to prevent Al-Qaeda militants from creating a sanctuary in Iraq, and to keep Iran from increasing its influence there.

Bush may also have to admit that if even if US military strategy is working, political progress is not, and he may heap pressure on Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki to take steps toward reconciling the diverse sectarian factions and stabilizing the country.

The Washington Post, citing unnamed White House aides, said Bush plans to emphasize that he can order a troop reduction only because of the success achieved on the ground in Iraq, and that he is not being swayed by political opposition.

The aides said Bush will also caution that the cuts would be conditional on continued military gains and that he plans to outline what he sees as the dire consequences of failure in Iraq, according to the Post.

Congress is to reopen debate on Iraq strategy in the coming days, and could revisit the prickly debate over financing the war which bogged down Congress earlier this year.

But Democrats have so far failed to force Bush's hand, and despite concerns on both sides of the political aisle over the cost of the war, they still appear unable to rally enough support to overcome any presidential veto.

Copyright © 2009 AFP. All rights reserved. More »