With the prison scandal and escalating violence in Iraq continuing to erode Washington's credibility with the Iraqi people and the rest of the world, US President George W. Bush on Monday launched his latest effort to convince skeptical Americans and the world about a "clear" strategy for handing over power to the Iraqis.

In his televised speech at the US Army War College, the president outlined a new draft resolution being developed in consultation with American allies and submitted to the United Nations. He talked in general terms of ways to broaden global support for a changing Iraq.

Predicting insurgents probably would become "more active and more brutal," Bush declared the United States will stay in Iraq "until it is free and democratic," and suggested more US troops might be needed.

Nevertheless, he offered old rhetoric but few specifics on how to rectify the administration's miserable mismanagement of post-war Iraq.

His "five steps" toward Iraqi independence were merely a list of the tasks we already knew need to be done.

He did not announce any major change of policy, nor give a firm date for the withdrawal of US troops.

Still, what power and authority the Iraqi interim government will have in practice is less clear than Bush suggests.

Invading a sovereign state without UN authorization was a huge mistake. Designing a power transfer without handing over full state power - again without UN blessing - will be equally grievous.

There is an increasing air of desperation in the discussions on the future of the coalition efforts in the war-ravaged country, where violence continues five weeks before a crucial new phase in the transition to Iraqi sovereignty is scheduled to begin.

What seemed a year ago to be a dramatic and decisive victory in Iraq has deteriorated into scenes of chaos, violence and uncertainty, symbolized in recent weeks by the stark images of abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib at the hands of their American captors.

Bush has yet to formulate a realistic plan for doing more than just getting through the June 30 transition. Gaining UN support - which Bush initially shunned - and getting Iraq's political groups involved in drafting a workable constitution would be a start.

However, the draft text presented to the UN Security Council for deliberation by the US-British alliance does not give a definite timetable for ending the occupation by the US-led multinational force and instead calls for a review after a year, which a new Iraqi government can request earlier.

A review would be similar to an open-ended mandate and would not mean the force would leave unless the Security Council, where the United States has veto power, decides it should do so.

Washington's notion that its military presence and continuing political tutelage will translate into political stability and democracy in Iraq is no longer credible. The truth is that the US military presence itself is unnecessary.

Security Council members began debating the draft resolution yesterday. Voices of Iraq and Arabic countries should be respected.

We can only hope a consensus will be reached quickly - one that lays the foundation for making "Iraqis governing Iraq" possible and giving the United Nations a full role to play in the process.

Source: China Daily