'Now is the time to act'

WASHINGTON _ President Bush last night announced a revised strategy for the Iraq war that he said will require 21,500 additional US troops and a strong commitment from Iraqi forces to go after militias, but Democrats as well as some Republicans pledged to fight the plan on Capitol Hill.

In a widely anticipated prime-time speech, Bush acknowledged it was a mistake not to send more troops earlier to Iraq to secure the most violent neighborhoods, and "responsibility rests with me."

Although Bush has offered different strategies that have largely failed to quell the violence, he said the new strategy will work because it requires Iraq's government to commit more of its own troops, who will remain in the area after insurgents have been cleared away. The plan, the president said, will give the Iraqi government "breathing space" to broker political solutions and give hope to war-weary Iraqis.

Rebuffing critics who want the United States to withdraw the 132,000 troops already there, Bush warned that to "step back now would force a collapse of the Iraqi government." That would result in US troops "being forced to stay in Iraq even longer" and confront a deadlier enemy.

"If we increase our support at this crucial moment, and help the Iraqis break the current cycle of violence, we can hasten the day our troops begin coming home," the president said.

After nearly four years of war and more than 3,000 American casualties, Bush's speech was a tacit acknowledg ment that his policies in Iraq have failed to meet his own benchmarks.

Bush delivered the speech in the White House library, using an unemotional cadence until the end, when he appeared to choke up saying that he trusted that "the Author of Liberty will guide us through these trying hours."

The strategy Bush outlined relies heavily on an ultimatum to the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki of Iraq to provide more troops and take on militias, the chief source of the violence. Bush's national security adviser, Stephen Hadley, has questioned whether Maliki is ignorant of the militia problem or unequipped to deal with it.

Last night, Bush said Maliki has assured him that he is ready to tackle the problem.

"I have made it clear to the prime minister and Iraq's other leaders that America's commitment is not open-ended," Bush said. "If the Iraqi government does not follow through on its promises, it will lose the support of the American people -- and it will lose the support of the Iraqi people. Now is the time to act. The prime minister understands this."

Some Republicans urged the nation to give Bush's proposal a chance, but skepticism and outright criticism of the plan crossed party lines. Democratic leaders -- who won power in part on an anti war platform -- vowed to hold a vote on the proposal to increase troops, but the measure is likely to be symbolic.

Bush's new strategy rejected one of the central elements of a much-publicized proposal made by the Iraq Study Group, which urged him to involve Iraq's neighbors, Iran and Syria, in a regional peace effort to stabilize Iraq. Bush said last night that Iran and Syria "are allowing terrorists and insurgents to use their territory to move in and out of Iraq."

And while the bipartisan Iraq Study Group said it could envision a temporary increase in force, it strongly recommended Bush order all troops out of Iraq by 2008, except those involved in training and supporting Iraqi forces.

Leon Panetta, a Democratic member of the Iraq Study Group and former President Bill Clinton's chief of staff, said he worried Bush's proposal "sends the wrong message to the Iraqis." Panetta, like other panelists who spent months analyzing the war, doubts Iraqis will take responsibility for national security if they believe US forces will grow in number and remain in Iraq.

"There wasn't a military commander we talked to that didn't say any increase in force will only produce a temporary result" unless the Iraqis implement political reforms and improve their army and police, Panetta said in a telephone interview yesterday. "You could send 100,000 troops into Iraq and you are not going to improve security there."

But Bush said he decided against bringing troops home because that would result in the "collapse of the Iraqi government" and lead to "mass killings on an unimaginable scale."

Along with an increase in forces, Bush's plan calls for more than $1 billion in aid to Iraq, in part to double the small military and civilian reconstruction teams that are intended to foster reconciliation at the local level. The additional funding will also beef up an emergency fund US commanders use to quickly fund small projects to improve the quality of everyday life -- and win grass-roots support for the Iraqi government.

At his confirmation hearing last month, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said that the United States is not winning the war in Iraq but also not losing. Bush last night sought to explain to a skeptical public how difficult it will be to define success.

"Victory will not look like the ones our fathers and grandfathers achieved. There will be no surrender ceremony on the deck of a battleship," Bush said. But he said supporting Iraq "will help bring a future of peace and security for our children and grandchildren."

It was not immediately clear how the increased troop level would affect the Massachusetts National Guard. A spokesman for the unit said he has not received any official word about whether Massachusetts members of the National Guard would be part of the increased deployment.

"We don't know specifically how any proposed troop surge would affect Massachusetts," Major Winfield S. Danielson III said, adding that the unit would perform whatever duty is requested by the president.