Bush understates challenges in Iraq, Afghanistan

President George W. Bush offered relatively upbeat assessments of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that failed to address how hard it may be for his successor to stabilize them, analysts said.

In his final State of the Union speech on Monday, the outgoing Republican president argued that over the past year Iraq has seen declining violence and growing political reconciliation among its main Shi'ite, Sunni and Kurdish ethnic groups.

In Afghanistan, he described "a nation that was once a safe haven for al Qaeda" as "a young democracy where boys and girls are going to school, new roads and hospitals are being built, and people are looking to the future with new hope."

In both cases, analysts said Bush painted an unduly rosy picture and omitted key factors that threaten their stability.

"There has been a substantial decrease in violence (in Iraq) -- that is undeniable -- but there really has been little fundamental progress toward political reconciliation that the president trumpeted today," said Kurt Campbell, chief executive of the Center for a New American Security think tank.

Bush largely attributed the decline in the violence in Iraq to the "surge" of troops that he ordered a year ago and to the emergence of Sunni groups willing to make common cause with U.S. forces to fight against Al Qaeda in Iraq militants.

Carlos Pascual, director of foreign policy at the Brookings Institution, said the 80,000 Sunni militia members fighting with the Americans were not integrated into Iraqi security forces and deeply distrust the Shi'ite-dominated government.

Two other factors contributing to the decline in violence are anti-American Shi'ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr's decision to suspend operations by his Mehdi Army militia and an apparent reduction in Iran's support for Shi'ite insurgents.

Both decisions could be reversed, worsening the situation.

"This is not a balance of stability that gives one much confidence," Pascual said.

'ENORMOUS PERIL'

Bush said 20,000 U.S. forces injected into Iraq during the surge would gradually come home this year, leaving roughly 140,000 troops in the country. He made no promises on further reductions, saying this depended on conditions on the ground.

Analysts said this likely meant that the next president will have come into office with more than 100,000 troops in Iraq.

While praising the work of NATO forces in Afghanistan, Bush made no mention of sniping in the alliance that some members are reluctant to allow their troops to go into combat, of the burgeoning opium trade or of the rise in suicide bombings.

The United States recently announced plans to send 3,200 more U.S. troops to Afghanistan, an implicit acknowledgment that it has not gotten the help from its allies that it had hoped and is therefore coming up with the manpower itself.

"The best case scenario is that we have a steady state in Afghanistan and Iraq and that neither of the two deteriorates further" before Bush leaves office, Pascual said.

"If you look at the (next president's) inheritance, we are going to have two wars raging, with probably something like 130,000 or 150,000 troops engaged," Campbell said. "We have got a huge challenge with a rising China, serious worries in Pakistan and Iran and the total absence of Middle East peace."

"I don't think he adequately reflected that ... we are in the midst of one of the most difficult and tragic experiences in our foreign policy ... with enormous peril," he added.

In his speech, Bush made no mention of North Korea, an area where the administration can claim some progress. North Korea has taken steps toward giving up its nuclear weapons, allowing the disablement of its nuclear facilities at Yongbyon.

He also spent relatively little time on the Middle East, stressing his desire to see Israelis and Palestinians strike a peace deal before he leaves office but did not talk about the many difficulties on the ground.

"What must be bittersweet for him is that he had hoped to be handing off successes to the next president, but all the things he cares about on the foreign policy front are going to be profound challenges for his successor," said Jon Alterman, director of the Middle East program at the CSIS think tank.