Dire Situation.

Gen. David Petraeus, the incoming US commander in Iraq, on Jan. 23 warned Congress that the situation in Iraq was "dire" but urged lawmakers not to oppose a military surge, saying: "None of this will be rapid. The way ahead will be neither quick nor easy and there undoubtedly will be tough days".

Gen Petraeus, who will oversee the military surge in Iraq, said the US would have indications by late summer whether the plan to send another 21,500 US troops to help the Iraqi security forces stamp out sectarian violence was having success. Earlier this month, however, Defence Secretary Gates said it would be clear whether the Iraq government was living up to its pledges before all of the new US troops arrived in Baghdad, which is expected by early June.

Gen Petraeus was appearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee amid growing congressional opposition to the surge. Democrats and several key Republicans have introduced non-binding resolutions opposing escalating US troop levels. Susan Collins, a Maine Republican, who on Jan. 23 joined John Warner, the former Republican chairman of the committee, in opposing the surge, told Petraeus: "You talk about this being a race against the clock, but I wonder if the clock has already run out".

Appearing more confident before the committee than Gen George Casey, the outgoing commander, Gen Petraeus waded into the political debate by agreeing with Republican senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham that congressional resolutions of opposition would send the wrong message to US troops and the enemy in Iraq. Graham said: "No matter how well-intentioned, a resolution...opposed to this new strategy is a vote of no confidence. The enemy will see it as a weakened resolve...those people going to fight this war are going to say, well, I'm going, but the Congress says good luck, but you're going to lose".

New York Democrat Hillary Clinton said: "I...have put forward ideas about disapproving the escalation not because we in any way embrace failure or defeat, but because we are trying to get the attention of our government and the government of Iraq".

While senators welcomed the choice of Gen Petraeus, credited with bringing stability to Mosul in 2004, to replace Gen Casey, they grilled him over the Baghdad plan, saying it was inconsistent with the military counter-insurgency manual he wrote. Instead of her usual methodical questioning, Mrs Clinton underscored her recently announced candidacy for president with a blistering attack on the Bush administration and the military surge, telling Petraeus: "You wrote the book, general, but the policy is not by the book. And you are being asked to square the circle, to find a military solution to a political crisis".

The counter-insurgency manual suggests that 120,000 troops would be needed to curb the sectarian violence in a city the size of Baghdad. Jack Reed, a Rhode Island Democrat, questioned how 41,000 US troops and 50,000 Iraqi forces could succeed. In defending the plan, Gen Petraeus said US and Iraqi forces would be freed up for counter-insurgency operations because of the use of private security companies.

Ayman al-Zawahiri, Osama bin Laden's deputy, on Jan. 22 taunted Bush over his decision to send more troops to Iraq. He said in a video: "Why send 20,000 only - why not send 50,000 or 100,000? Aren't you aware that the dogs of Iraq are pining for your troops' dead bodies?".

Bush's Nightmare Scenario: In his annual State of the Union speech on Jan. 23, President Bush called Iran-sponsored Shi'ite extremists as great a peril to his nation as al-Qaeda, singling out Lebanon's Hizbullah as well as the Shi'ite militias which his war in Iraq helped to power. He raised the "nightmare scenario" of a premature US pullout sparking an "epic battle between Shi'ite extremists backed by Iran and Sunni extremists aided by al-Qaeda and supporters of the [Saddam's] old [Ba'thist] regime".

Bush said: "In recent times, it has also become clear that we face an escalating danger from Shi'ite extremists who are just as hostile to America, and are also determined to dominate the Middle East. Many are known to take direction from the regime in Iran, which is funding and arming terrorists like Hizbullah - a group second only to al-Qaeda in the American lives it has taken". He accused "Hizbullah terrorists" of "seeking to undermine Lebanon's legitimately elected government".

Two weeks after unveiling a new strategy centred on sending 21,500 more troops to Iraq, the embattled president gave no ground to his critics and urged lawmakers and the US public: "Give it a chance to work", saying: "On this day, at this hour, it is still within our power to shape the outcome of this battle. So let us find our resolve, and turn events towards victory". He acknowledged a dramatic upsurge in sectarian violence, telling Americans leery of seeing US troops caught in the crossfire:

"This is not the fight we entered in Iraq, but it is the fight we are in. If US forces step back before Baghdad is secure, the Iraqi government would be overrun by extremists on all sides. We could expect an epic battle between Shi'ite extremists backed by Iran, and Sunni extremists aided by al-Qaeda and supporters of the old regime. A contagion of violence could spill out across the country, and in time the entire region could be drawn into the conflict".