George W Bush last night faced down his critics on Iraq, warning that the Middle East would be "dramatically transformed" in a way that would endanger the civilised world if extremist forces drove America from the region.
In a speech to army veterans in Nevada, the US President declared: "America will not abandon Iraq in its hour of need."
Describing the battle as one between the forces of extremism and freedom, Mr Bush said: "Either our enemies advance their interests in Iraq or we advance our interests. The most important and immediate way to counter the ambitions of al Qaeda, Iran and other forces of instability and terror is to win the fight in Iraq."
Mr Bush is coming under increasing pressure ahead of a key report on the state of play in Iraq from General David Petraeus, the US commander on the ground, which is likely to determine the fate of America's mission in Iraq.
As Mr Bush defended his policy, David Miliband, the Foreign Secretary, appeared to pave the way for Gordon Brown to announce the beginnings of a British withdrawal later this year by insisting any such decision would be made independently of Washington.
While the Prime Minister has rejected demands for a fixed timetable for withdrawal, the tone and nuanced language increasingly appear to be pointing in one direction.
To add to Washington's frustration, in Tehran President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad boldly declared that US political influence in Iraq was "collapsing rapidly".
In another worrying development, retired Vice Admiral John Scott Redd, the head of the National Counter-terrorism Centre in America, claimed that US authorities had "very strong indicators" al Qaeda was planning to attack the West.
Elsewhere in Afghanistan, a suicide bomber killed three Nato soldiers and wounded six others in the eastern province of Patkia as they worked on a bridge construction.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article