US:After two months of consultations, President George Bush will tomorrow announce a new policy for Iraq and dramatic changes in the nature of the US military operation there.
The White House confirmed yesterday that it has asked the main television networks to broadcast the president's address from the Oval Office at 9pm (US time) tomorrow.
Mr Bush appears certain to reject the main recommendations of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, which called for the withdrawal of most US combat troops by early 2008 and direct talks with Iran and Syria.
Instead, the president wants to send more troops to Iraq and to focus on establishing security for civilians, especially in Baghdad, rather than on transferring responsibility to the Iraqi military.
The military operation would be part of a broader counter-insurgency effort that includes job creation schemes and loans to small businesses. The US operation would be conditional on the Iraqi government taking specific steps to further reconciliation between Sunnis and Shias.
Democrats have already signalled their opposition to sending more troops and they are preparing tough questions for secretary of state Condoleezza Rice and defence secretary Bob Gates at congressional hearings on Iraq later this week.
Republican senator John McCain, who supports the counter-insurgency plan, acknowledged last week that it would probably make 2007 a bloody year in Iraq.
"I want to be clear, and I mean this with all sincerity: [ This] strategy will mean more casualties and extra hardships for our brave fighting men and women, and the violence may get worse before it gets better. We have to be prepared for this," he said.
The new American operational commander in Iraq, Lt Gen Raymond Odierno, said this week that it could take another "two or three years" before the US and Iraqi forces gain the upper hand.
The president's plan is based on a proposal by Frederick Kagan, a military analyst at the conservative American Enterprise Institute (AEI). Unlike many neoconservatives, Dr Kagan believes it remains possible to establish a stable, pro-US state in Iraq but only if Washington adopts a new approach.
"The strategy of relying on a political process to eliminate the insurgency has failed. Rising sectarian violence threatens to break America's will to fight. This violence will destroy the Iraqi government, armed forces and people if it is not rapidly controlled," he wrote in an AEI report last week.
Dr Kagan argues that no political progress is possible until security is restored, particularly in Baghdad, where 6 million out of 25 million Iraqis live. He stresses, however, that the US military operation must be accompanied by political changes and by measures designed to win the "hearts and minds" of the civilian population.
Although the president appears convinced that success in Iraq remains possible and that the consequences of defeat are unthinkable, the American public wants US troops to come home.
Sending more troops and hundreds of millions of dollars to Iraq finds little support among congressional Democrats and unnerves many Republicans, who fear for their seats in the 2008 election.
Although House speaker Nancy Pelosi hinted this week that Congress could refuse to fund the president's plan, there may be little Congress can do to stop Mr Bush. The Vietnam war ended when Congress cut off funding but today's Democrats are reluctant to take a step that could be construed as letting down the military in Iraq.
The next few weeks will be uncomfortable for the administration, however, as Congress starts investigations into numerous aspects of the Iraq war, including its planning, the use of intelligence to justify it and the way lucrative military contracts were granted. For the president, tomorrow's speech may be his last chance to persuade the American people that his decision to invade Iraq has helped to make the US safe and to bring stability to the Middle East.