A somewhat limited programme of holiday activities has been arranged for President George W Bush's Easter vacation at his ranch near Crawford, Texas. Today, along with his wife, parents and Condoleezza Rice, the National Security Adviser, President Bush will attend church in nearby Fort Hood.

Yesterday, he and his father, George Bush Snr, went fishing for bass in the ranch pond, accompanied by a television crew from the cable channel, Outdoor Network. The boat trip was the idea of White House election strategists, intended to promote the President's sporting prowess during his Easter "downtime".

Unfortunately, other outdoor photo-opportunities have been few and far between. "What's he been doing on vacation?" said one administration official. "Sitting in the video-conference room."

Like Tony Blair, currently pondering Iraq options in the colonial residence of the governor of Bermuda, President Bush has spent most of his time off mulling over the challenge of Moqtada al-Sadr to his game-plan for the summer. 

When the Prime Minister and President meet for lunch at the White House next Friday, a new Iraqi antagonist will have replaced Saddam in their table-talk. Al-Sadr, the virulently anti-American young radical who has achieved cult status among poor Shi'ites, has told President Bush that coalition troops must leave Iraq immediately or face a Shia "revolution", perhaps assisted by their sometime foes the Sunni Muslims.

The United States, which has 150,000 troops in the country, will certainly defeat al Sadr's "revolutionaries", even if their numbers grow beyond the current American estimate of 4,000-6,000. But an emerging legion of sceptics in London and Washington is wondering at what political and human cost that victory will come.

In the bloodbaths of Fallujah, Ramadi and Kufa, Shi'ite and Sunni fighters have inflicted more damage in days than Saddam managed in the weeks before he fell.

Al-Sadr, having taken on the Americans, is assured of either martyr or hero status, either of which will add lustre to his militia. Ninety days before the supposed handover of sovereignty to an Iraqi body whose form is still a mystery, there is dangerous confusion in Baghdad, London and Washington.

"We still don't know to whom we're passing sovereignty on the June 30 deadline," said a Republican official, "and what will it matter anyway, if our soldiers are still out in the streets fighting Sunnis and Shi'ites?" 

By the time President Bush arrived in Crawford on Wednesday, and Mr Blair landed in Bermuda on Friday, such questions had been ringing in their ears for days. The President's numbers are bad: the latest poll, taken on Monday, showed only 40 per cent approval ratings of his handling of the war, down from 59 per cent in January. Briefly, there was even talk of returning to Washington. But it was decided that the ranch trailer that doubles as a video-conference room would do.

Early on Wednesday, President Bush had a 30-minute telephone conversation with Mr Blair. Then he decamped to the trailer - Gen John Abizaid, the commander of US Central Command in Iraq, and Paul Bremer, the leader of the Coalition Provisional Authority, were waiting to talk from Baghdad.

The first question was a Bush video-conference favourite: "Do you have the resources to get the job done?" According to White House officials, the President was assured that the American troops were performing brilliantly and bravely. But the issue of whether more troops were needed was not directly addressed. After being taken by surprise by the week's events, no one seemed to know.

Donald Rumsfeld, the Secretary of Defence, said that it had been expected that al-Sadr would "react" to the forced closure of his newspaper, Al-Hawza. But he added that "commanders on the ground were apparently surprised by the ferocity" of the response.

A former senior official of the Coalition Provisional Authority told The Sunday Telegraph yesterday that Mr Bremer and his advisers twice put proposals to the White House for decisive action to disband al-Sadr and his militia. First in November, after intercepting a heavily armed convoy of more than 1,000 Mehdi Army fighters, and again a few weeks later. "It was discussed at the White House at the most senior levels but rejected as too politically risky."

The proposal called for a "swift and comprehensive" occupation of all religious sites, training camps and property controlled by the group, the disbandment of its sharia courts and action against its attempts to control social behavior in Iraqi cities and towns.

The scale of the fighting in Fallujah, too, had come as a shock. The use of overwhelming force, leading to 280 Iraqi deaths, had engendered, until a Friday ceasefire, a ferocious Sunni response.

On Thursday, as the Marine body-count rose, there was yet more video discussion with Mr Rumsfeld. It was announced that the return to the United States of 25,000 troops would be delayed. "They seem to be thinking 'win this battle and win it now'," said a White House official.

Yet in the US military camps dotted around the trouble spots of Southern Iraq and the Sunni Triangle, there is growing foreboding. Battles can be won, although 45 Marines died this week fighting them. Maintaining order when the Iraq Civil Defence Corps disintegrates, as it did last week, is another matter.

"The White House doesn't understand that we need significantly more troops," said one Coalition Provisional Authority official last week. "If Iraq descends into civil war, we will be distinctly less safe than we were before this invasion. Everything is at stake now. What we do in the next three months politically and militarily will determine whether the war has made us safer."

The mood in London and Washington is almost as bleak. Even traditional loyalists are feeling queasy. Among the dozen Labour "wobblers", who first opposed and then - crucially for Mr Blair - supported the invasion of Iraq in the March 2003 vote, the regret is bitter and suddenly vocal. In particular, the counter-insurgency measures by US Marines in Fallujah, where some 300 Iraqi casualties were counted in a matter of hours, have become a source of outrage.

Eric Illsley, the MP for Barnsley Central and a member of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, told The Sunday Telegraph: "It looks as though the Americans have just decided to wade in and quell the demonstrations by killing people. There is a growing feeling here of what the hell are we doing in there and how are we going to get out. It is beginning to look as if we have really embroiled ourselves in something here."

On Friday, after four days of badgering by BBC Radio, Jack Straw finally agreed to represent the Government on the Today programme, where he admitted that he was flummoxed by how grim the situation had suddenly become. "There is no doubt that the current situation is very serious and it is the most serious we have faced," the Foreign Secretary told John 

Humphrys. Saddam Hussein had been sitting on a pressure cooker "and the lid of the pressure cooker has come off".

As images of blood-soaked Marines staggering from Abrams tanks were beamed across America, the mood was just as grim in Washington. On Capitol Hill, for the first time, along with the usual statements of support for the troops, senior Republicans are whispering criticisms of the President's Iraq strategy. "Forty-five Americans dead in a week," said a Republican congressional aide, "a battle on two fronts if we're not careful; and an election year. People don't want to be disloyal, but people are concerned."

Richard Lugar, the Republican senator from Illinois, suggested extending the June 30 deadline for the handover of sovereignty, in the expectation that Iraq will not be ready in 90 days.

Newt Gingrich, the famously combative ex-leader of the House of Representatives, warned President Bush that the current chaos will hurt his electoral chances, unless the White House "wins the argument that this is an unavoidable fight".

If there are many more Fallujahs or Ramadis, it will be a difficult one to sell. Even Bill O'Reilly, the leading conservative talk-show host and a favourite at the White House, is having doubts. "This is like South Vietnam redux," said Mr O'Reilly. "If it gets worse, there's no way Bush wins.

"The American people are not going to absorb this kind of chaos for several years. I know this country, I know myself. If I'm seeing 10 bodies a week through the last weekend in October, that's going to change my vote."

Unfortunately, according to a senior Pentagon adviser, the horrors of the past 10 days mean that "there are no cute options" for Mr Blair and President Bush. Mr Blair meets Kofi Annan, the United Nations' Secretary General, next Thursday, but as foreign hostages are taken daily, a speedy UN return to Iraq is judged unlikely in Washington. Within the Bush administration, the mood is increasingly defiant.

"Everything is high-risk now," the Pentagon adviser told The Sunday Telegraph. "We're not going to get new allies. And Kofi [Annan] is not going to go near this with his people. This is America, or rather America and Britain, on their own. We need to pull out all the stops to squelch this thing in time."

"Politically, it's an unpopular move to send troops back. Militarily, it may be the only move available, other than delaying rotation, which may not be enough."

On Good Friday afternoon, US Vice-President Dick Cheney flew to Japan to urge the prime minister, Junichiro Koizumi, not to flinch in the face of threats to "burn alive" three Japanese hostages held in Iraq.

Mr Blair later arrived in Bermuda, where he was greeted by a minor anti-war protest. President Bush, inevitably, was in his trailer, receiving an update on military operations in Iraq.

A National Security Council video-conference including Mr Rumsfeld, Dr Rice, Andy Card, the White House chief of staff, George Tenet, the CIA Director, General Abizaid and Mr Bremer had reconvened. It was reported that Moqtader al-Sadr's militia still appeared to control the sacred city of Najaf and Kufa.

There was also a discussion about the possibility of a terror attack organised by the al-Qaeda operative, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, on Shi'ite pilgrims marking Arbain, an important religious festival. Intelligence suggested that al-Zarqawi would attempt to blame such an attack on American forces, making them more attractive targets for Shi'ite radicals.

Outside the Easter sun shone. It was the beginning of a Bush family holiday weekend and a father-and-son fishing trip awaited. No one who had taken part in the trailer discussions felt appropriately relaxed. But at least on the Bass pond, unlike the volatile towns of Iraq, there was no chance of the hunters becoming the hunted.
 
 
 

story and graphics copyright 
telegraph.co.uk