US:President George W Bush will use a televised address to the nation tonight to announce a modest reduction in US forces in Iraq that could reduce troop levels to 130,000 within a year, the operational strength in Iraq before the current "surge" began.
Democrats said yesterday that the cuts, which echo the recommendations of US commander in Iraq Gen David Petraeus, did not go far enough and party leaders were preparing for renewed political combat over the war.
"It's an insult to the intelligence of the American people that that is a new direction in Iraq. We're as disappointed as the public is that the president has a tin ear to their opinion on this war," said House speaker Nancy Pelosi.
The president is expected to make any troop cuts conditional on military progress in Iraq, although Democrats point out that the administration has little choice but to end the surge next year because the US does not have sufficient personnel to sustain it.
Senate Democrats hope to attract additional Republican support for a policy shift by calling for a change of mission for US troops, moving them away from a combat role towards force protection, training and counterterrorism in advance of a withdrawal. Democrats need Republican support to win the 60 Senate votes needed to avoid a filibuster or the 67 required to override a presidential veto.
Presidential candidates in both parties weighed into the Iraq debate yesterday, with Barack Obama using a speech in Clinton, Iowa, to differentiate his position from the more cautious approach of Democratic front runner Hillary Clinton.
"Conventional thinking in Washington lined up for war. The pundits judged the political winds to be blowing in the direction of the president," Mr Obama said.
"Despite, or perhaps because of, how much experience they had in Washington, too many politicians feared looking weak and failed to ask hard questions," he added.
Mr Obama, who opposed the war from the outset, called for an immediate move to withdraw most US troops and argued it that could be completed within a year.
"Let me be clear: There is no military solution in Iraq, and there never was. The best way to protect our security and to pressure Iraq's leaders to resolve their civil war is to immediately begin to remove our combat troops. Not in six months or one year - now," he said.
Republican candidate Mitt Romney criticised Mr Obama, arguing that the US would be less safe today had the president followed the Illinois senator's drawdown strategy instead of increasing troop numbers earlier this year.
"Had there not been a surge, had Barack Obama been running the country instead, al-Qaeda would now have a safe haven in Iraq, which would have made Afghanistan's safe haven look like child's play," Mr Romney said.
"I think Barack Obama has disqualified himself for presidential leadership."
Mrs Clinton said that the president's planned announcement of a troop reduction would have happened anyway when the troops would have had to come home at the end of their 15-month deployment.
"He is in essence going to tell the American people that one year from now the number of troops in Iraq will be the same as there were one year ago," she said.
"Taking credit for this troop reduction is like taking credit for the sun coming up in the morning."