The redemption of the Vietnam War?,President Bush is seeking to redeem the Vietnam War .
He has tried to turn conventional wisdom about that war (that it was a quagmire and a sideshow in strategic terms) on its head, In his speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars, he presented Vietnam as part of a pattern of American operations in the Far East in which Japan had been democratised and South Korea liberated - despite, he argued, the opposition of "experts" of the day.

Vietnam was a war, he suggested, that was worth fighting. And his message was clear - so, too, is the war in Iraq.

The US withdrawal from Vietnam, he argued, led to more suffering, not less. Just as it would, he implied, in Iraq, with the added danger in Iraq, he claimed, that al-Qaeda would be emboldened.

Three weeks before his administration presents its assessment of the Iraq war to Congress, Mr Bush is signalling that the US will not leave Iraq on his watch (which ends in January 2009). This speech followed a significant phrase he used in a radio address on 11 August that the surge of US troops in Iraq was in its "early stages."

The Vietnam connection

The introduction of Vietnam into the argument is fraught with difficulties.

His speech re-opens an old issue over President Bush. Are his claims reality or exaggeration?

The example of Vietnam might appeal to the veterans who fought there and to a new generation that did not experience the divisions that it wrought in US society. It will appeal to American pride and patriotism and seeks to throw critics of the Iraq war onto the defensive.

But using Vietnam as an analogy might not appeal to the American people as a whole. For them, Vietnam has always been a failure and any comparison with it evokes that failure.

And warnings do not always get heard. Americans, after all, were warned of disaster if South Vietnam fell. Yet that did not happen. The dominoes of Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore and the Philippines did not fall to communism. They thrived. And the United States went on to win the Cold War.

A lesson of Vietnam is that predictions are so often precarious.

Was it winnable?

Mr Bush himself did not say so, but some participants like the former US Secretary of State Al Haig have argued that Vietnam was "winnable". Almost no military historians have agreed.

The US and the South Vietnamese government were facing not just a guerrilla war in South Vietnam led by the Viet Cong but large-scale assaults from the North Vietnamese army. North Vietnam was led by committed ideologues who were quite determined to achieve their goals whatever the cost. They had seen off the French and would see off anyone else.


A lesson of Vietnam is that predictions are so often precarious
The Americans tried all the tactical variations. Kennedy sent thousands of military "advisers" (the question being, of course, whether he would have sent major combat units). Johnson escalated the war into a massive commitment.

"Search and destroy" sweeps, attacks on North Vietnamese supply lines and the North itself, the herding of villagers into encampments, napalm bombing - everything regarded by the Americans as within the bounds of acceptable warfare at that time was tried.

Then American public support collapsed, their troops left and they tried Vietnamisation. They handed the war over to the South Vietnamese army. That, too, failed.

The price

President Bush argued that the price of the US withdrawal "was paid by millions of innocent citizens whose agonies would add to our vocabulary new terms like 'boat people', 're-education camps', and 'killing fields'."

It is interesting to note his use of the word "citizens" to describe the Vietnamese and the Cambodians. It dignifies the war as well as them (though it was not a word used by US troops much) and it hints that other "citizens" (including American ones) will suffer if Iraq, too, is abandoned.

He did not say there would have been suffering and death if the Americans had stayed to fight it out.

Genocide

Another argument he used was that the massacre of the Cambodian population by the Khmer Rouge was the result of the failure in Vietnam.

It is true that the Khmer Rouge gained power in Cambodia the same year that North Vietnamese did in South Vietnam - 1975.

But the seeds of their success had been sown much earlier and the effect of the US bombing of Cambodia (to attack North Vietnamese bases there) is thought to have increased support for the Khmer Rouge to an ultimately disastrous extent.

It was in fact left to Vietnam to invade and remove the genocidal Khmer Rouge in 1979.

Ultimately, the war in Iraq will not be won in arguments over Vietnam.

The fact that President Bush is making these arguments shows how determined he is to stay in Iraq.

Maliki received warmly in Syria,Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki's trip to Syria has been hailed as historic by both countries.,With diplomatic ties between Syria and Iraq only restored last year, the two governments are keen to stress their growing co-operation.
Syria was opposed to the American-led invasion of Iraq, and both the American and Iraqi administrations have accused the Syrian government of helping to fuel the Sunni insurgency.

But Iraqi officials told the BBC that Syria had agreed to tighten security on the border to prevent more insurgents slipping into Iraq.

There are to be increased economic ties between the two countries, and Iraqi officials have agreed to help contribute the cost of accommodating 1.4 million Iraqi refugees in Syria.

Mutual respect

For the two countries, this trip represents an acknowledgement that their futures are closely intertwined.

During the days of former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, the relationship between the two countries was often poisonous.


We are all - Iraq, Syria, Iran, Turkey and the other Arab countries neighbouring Iraq - concerned with controlling security, with stability and with protecting the region from rifts
Nouri Maliki
Syria used to issue passports bearing the stamp: "All Arab countries except Iraq."
But since last year, there has been a concerted push to improve their bilateral relations. Mr Maliki got the full diplomatic red carpet during his visit.

He met Syrian President Bashar al-Assad at the presidential palace in Damascus where the two men were filmed sitting on ornate, pearl-inlaid chairs - an acknowledgement of how seriously Syria was taking this visit.

The full diplomatic niceties also amounted to official Syrian support for the Iraqi government, something Damascus had withheld.

Many Syrians regarded - and some still do - the Iraqi government as American stooges.

At a press conference, the Iraqi prime minister was asked whether he had arrived with a message from the Americans.

He replied curtly that he was representing the Iraqi government.

Beleaguered

Mr Maliki's trip to Syria comes after similar visit to Iran, which was publicly criticised by US President George W Bush.

The American government is trying to isolate both Iran and Syria.

But officials in the Iraqi delegation stressed that these two neighbouring countries are too important for Iraq to ignore, regardless of American objections.

Mr Maliki's visit was also aimed at shoring up support for his beleaguered government at home. Almost half of his cabinet has resigned.

Syria has a degree of influence over some Iraqi Sunni politicians and Mr Maliki will be hoping that they can persuade them to join is government.

For now, Mr Maliki and his delegation are buoyant about what they regard as a successful outing.

But the Iraqi prime minister will be expecting a tougher ride at home as he tries to save his government.

Why the US is unhappy with Maliki, The Bush administration is not hiding its frustration with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki. AS President Bush is using blunter language than in the past.
"Will the [Maliki] government respond to the demands of the people?" he asked on Tuesday, during a visit to Canada.

If it does not, he added pointedly, the people will replace it.

Reinforcing the message, the US ambassador in Baghdad, Ryan Crocker, said the Baghdad government's efforts to promote national reconciliation had been "extremely disappointing".

US support, he warned, was "not a blank cheque".

Clearly stung, Mr Maliki has hit back, declaring he is the elected Iraqi prime minister and others should not interfere.

Wearing thin

The comments of senior US officials do not go as far as those of Senator Carl Levin, a senior Democrat, who said this week that Mr Maliki had to go. But they indicate the administration's patience is wearing very thin.


The purpose of the current US strategy - the so-called "surge" launched in February - is to buy time for the Iraqi government to make political progress. It is a military means to a political end.
But far from making progress, Mr Maliki's government is visibly falling apart. Virtually all of the Sunni ministers have either resigned or are boycotting cabinet meetings.

Its claim to be a government of national unity, never very convincing, is now threadbare.

Efforts to convene a crisis "summit" of leaders of the Iraqi political factions have so far come to nothing.

Many Sunnis have lost faith in a Shia-dominated government they regard as wholly unsympathetic to their needs. Some go further and see it as an Iranian-backed government deeply biased against the Sunni Arab minority.

What alternative?

The Iraqi rumour mill is, as usual, churning out a variety of conspiracy theories.


Some Sunnis suspect America and Iran will do a deal at their expense.
Some Shia think neighbouring Sunni Arab states are ganging up to replace the Maliki government with one more to their liking.

But it is possible Mr Maliki will stagger on, albeit with his credibility diminished.

Parliament is in recess until early September. Some reports suggest the much-delayed "summit" will not take place before then.

That will be perilously close to the mid-September deadline when Ambassador Crocker and the top US general in Iraq, David Petraeus, are to appear before Congress to give their considered assessment of the "surge".

Two other names are regularly mentioned as possible replacements for Mr Maliki.

They are Adel Abdul Mahdi - of the Supreme Islamic Council of Iraq, one of the main Shia factions - and the former Prime Minister Iyad Allawi, who is a secular nationalist.

The first would be opposed by the Shia faction of Moqtada Sadr, a bitter rival of the Supreme Council. The second would be opposed by all the Shia Islamists.

In any case, it is far from clear that in current conditions any other Iraqi leader could do better. Changing horses is not a realistic US option.

Grumbling about Mr Maliki seems designed to step up the pressure on him rather than force him out.

Return to Gaza, The big green banner with its cheery message hung across the dusty street: "No more threat for our foreign visitors and guests.",I was being driven through Gaza City with a bodyguard provided by Hamas, the group that now controls this place.
They wanted to reassure me and my Panorama colleagues Darren Kemp and Jonathan Young that the fate of our colleague Alan Johnston was not in store for us.

Alan had been released a few weeks before after being kidnapped by a local clan.

We soon found ourselves at a Hamas training session in the middle of a scarily realistic kidnap scenario.

Screeching tyres and blasts of live fire swirled around us as the Executive Force demonstrated how they rescue kidnap victims.

Calmer streets

The armed wing of Hamas is better known for its suicide bombers, who have killed more than 100 Israeli civilians.


Now some of them are retraining as a police force to establish law and order after the anarchy of recent months.
I have been to Gaza many times before, and wanted to see for myself what life is like here after the bloody infighting between two rival Palestinian factions Fatah and Hamas resulted in Hamas kicking Fatah's leaders out of Gaza.

The streets do seem calmer now with Executive Force guards on every corner.

I chatted to a new recruit - a baker in the bad old days. Abu Fathee is now directing traffic.

"I saw how people were being beaten and kidnapped at this junction," he told me.

"I just felt that Hamas are honest and that they'll provide us with some peace and security. Not like the old lot."


The people of Gaza have got used to being punished for supporting Hamas, who the West regard as terrorists ,There is a lot of talk about this place becoming Hamastan, and when you look around, almost all women are veiled - but that has been happening over the last few years, and not just here but in many Muslim countries.
Hamas, the Islamic Resistance Movement calls for the establishment of an Islamic state, but their approach is more softly-softly, rather than a forced overnight conversion.

I met a 24-year-old physiotherapy student, Amani al-Dramli at a UN food distribution centre.

Many people in Gaza depend on handouts - as they always have - refugees from territorial battles over the surrounding land.


Amani told me: "To be honest, when Fatah were in power, we had enough to get by but there wasn't much security.
"Hamas haven't had the chance to prove themselves because they've been put under so much pressure."

Bitter infighting

The people of Gaza have got used to being punished for supporting Hamas, who the West regard as terrorists, rather than the acceptable face of Palestine - Fatah, the party of Yasser Arafat.

Fatah thought they had a monopoly of political power here, but 18 months ago a surprise election result put Hamas in power and, after months of negotiation, the rivals tried to share power in a coalition government.

The vast quantity of weapons that flowed into Gaza fuelled the tensions between the two sides, until Hamas ousted Fatah in June.

The bitter infighting has left the Palestinian people divided, not just geographically between the West Bank and Gaza, but politically too.

It has left a bitter legacy, as we discovered down on Gaza's beaches.

Here, children are enjoying summer camps with candyfloss and a carousel, but they are divided into pro-Hamas and Fatah groups.

Thirteen-year-old Ahed Abu Jared whose father - a Fatah militia leader was killed by a Hamas sniper - has sworn revenge: "Nothing can make me happy again. The only thing that would make me happy is when his kids lose their father."


And in the Hamas camp, the feeling is mutual, with even the youngest taught the propaganda of hatred.
An eight-year-old girl with an angelic face was shrill in her denunciation of Fatah: "I want Hamas to take revenge on our enemies and get rid of every single collaborator so that we can live in freedom."

Most of the world has responded to the Hamas coup by showering money and political favours on Fatah.

Meanwhile they are trying to freeze out Hamas - by strangling Gaza's economy.

On the other side of the fence around the strip, it is Israel that still controls what goes in and out of here.

I was taken along the Israeli side of the border by Major Peter Lerner of the Israeli Defence Forces.

He told me they are still being targeted by rockets and mortar fire from within Gaza.

Economic blockade

The Israelis have all but closed Gaza's economic lifeline, the commercial crossing at Karni.

Only a massive conveyor belt is working; delivering grain across the border at Gaza.


While I was leaving, behind me - more than a million Palestinians are growing more isolated by the day ,,It distances people on the Israeli side from potential suicide bombers and snipers.

"We need constant co-ordination, someone to talk to, but there's no one there," said Major Lerner.

"The reality is Hamas won't talk to us, and we won't talk to them".

The economic blockade is biting hard, 90% of Gaza's factories have been forced to close, 70,000 have lost their jobs because shipments of raw materials aren't getting in, and there can be no exports.

"It is having a profound impact on the psychology of the people," the UN's John Ging told me, as he showed me Gaza's industrial wasteland.

"And the anger and the frustration and the desperation - there's the fertile ground for extremism and radicalism and more violence," he said.

Gaza's people are effectively imprisoned, unable to cross any of its borders freely, thanks to Israel and the intransigence of leaders on both sides of the Palestinian divide.

My last impression of Gaza was standing in the ruins of Amani's family home, which had been destroyed by a Palestinian rocket during the infighting in May.

"We want to leave this country, we want to live in Saudi Arabia.

"My father is there, my sisters and brothers are there - they're waiting for us, and we're waiting for the borders to open. Life there is good. Life here is hard - really hard."

But with the borders closed, Amani cannot get out, and her father cannot get in.

As I left across a no-man's-land of burned out buildings, I reflected on my own freedom of movement.

While I was leaving, behind me - more than a million Palestinians are growing more isolated by the day.

Doubts over US Mideast strategy,Moderates and radicals,As two senior US officials tour the Middle East, the BBC's Roger Hardy finds experts are downbeat about the prospects for reviving the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. In a speech in mid-July, President George Bush reaffirmed his commitment to a two-state solution, with a Palestinian state living side by side with Israel.

Now, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Defence Secretary Robert Gates are trying to give some substance to this pledge.

The aim of their visit to the region is, first, to create an alliance of "moderates" to counter the influence of Iran and Syria and the militant groups Hamas and Hezbollah.

And, second, they are trying to breathe life into the peace process.

Few optimists

They want to persuade the Arab states to attend a proposed regional meeting - the White House is avoiding the word "conference" - which Ms Rice will host in the autumn

There is no sign they are really going to make (a) deep investment in peace-making
This will bring together Israel, the Palestinians and some of the Arab states.
Egypt and Jordan already have diplomatic relations with Israel. The hope is to draw in the Saudis, who do not.

But visit the foreign-policy think-tanks in Washington and you will not find many optimists.

Ellen Laipson, a former senior official in the National Security Council who now runs the Henry Stimson Center, reflects the general scepticism.

"I think the Bush administration has created a myth about itself," she says, "that it believes more deeply in a Palestinian state than previous presidents."

"Yet there is no sign they are really going to make the deep investment in peace-making that it would require."

Moderates and radicals

It appears the Bush initiative is still a work in progress.


It is not wise... to build up Hamas by making their opponents the favourite sons, if I can put it this way, of the West
Ambassador Thomas Pickering
It is not clear where or when the proposed regional "meeting" will take place - or, crucially, who will attend.

What inducements might persuade the Saudis to turn up?

Will Syria even be invited, given the current frostiness between Washington and Damascus?

No less fundamental, who can speak for the Palestinians at a time when they are governed by two rival administrations?

The Americans and the Israelis want to strengthen what they regard as the moderate government appointed by President Mahmoud Abbas in the West Bank - and isolate and weaken the Hamas administration in Gaza.

David Makovsky, of the pro-Israeli Washington Institute for Near East Policy, thinks it is vital to support President Abbas and his prime minister, Salam Fayyad.

"Hey, we got a moderate on the Palestinian side, we got a moderate on the Israeli side - and we still do nothing?"

That would simply guarantee, he says, that the radicals would prevail.

Will and staying power

But one of Washington's foreign-policy veterans, Thomas Pickering, is not convinced this approach will work.

"It is not wise for us, in a back-handed way, to build up Hamas by making their opponents the favourite sons, if I can put it this way, of the West."

Ambassador Pickering was under-secretary of state in the Clinton administration.

He thinks the two key figures - President Abbas and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert - may be politically too weak to carry the burden of peace-making.

The Bush administration is having its work cut out convincing the doubters that - with less than 18 months left to run - it really does have the will and the staying power to revive hopes for peace.