Bush's Economic Pom-Poms

Karen DeYoung writes in The Washington Post that "even some of the war's strongest supporters in Congress have grown impatient and frustrated. Petraeus, the top U.S. military commander in Iraq, and Crocker will face many lawmakers who had expected more by now and who are wondering whether any real change will occur before the clock runs out on the Bush administration."

David Lightman and Margaret Talev write for McClatchy Newspapers: "Army Gen. David Petraeus' congressional testimony this week is likely to generate plenty of sound, fury and analysis in Washington, but not much change in America's policy in Iraq."

Opinion Watch

The New York Times editorial board writes: "Americans this week get another chance to take stock of President Bush's war-without-end in Iraq. Gen. David Petraeus, the military commander in Baghdad, has already signaled his bottom line: there should be a pause in the withdrawal of American troops.

"We're not sure which specific argument the general will make: there is too much progress for American troops to leave now -- or not enough. Either way, it is clear that neither he nor Mr. Bush have a strategy for ending America's disastrous involvement in Iraq."

Meanwhile, in Iraq

Tina Susman writes in the Los Angeles Times: "In one of the most intense days of fighting here involving U.S. troops in recent months, American helicopters fired at least four Hellfire missiles and an Air Force jet dropped a bomb on a suspected militia target. Rockets and missiles launched from militia strongholds pounded U.S. bases around the city, where U.S. troops also came under fire from small arms and rocket-propelled grenades. Targets included the Green Zone, where the U.S. Embassy and most Iraqi government buildings are located."

Sholnn Freeman writes in The Washington Post: "The Green Zone was once considered an American oasis -- a protected bubble of comfort food, large, American-made sport-utility vehicles and enforced speed limits. But intensified shelling has contributed to a growing sense of insecurity on the eve of testimony before Congress by the two highest-ranking U.S. officials in Iraq: Gen. David H. Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker."

James Glanz and Stephen Farrell write in the New York Times: "A crackdown on the Mahdi Army militia is creating potentially destabilizing political and military tensions in Iraq, pitting a stronger government alliance against the force that has won past showdowns: the street power wielded by the radical cleric Moktada al-Sadr. . . .

"Figures compiled by the American military showed that attacks specifically on military targets in Baghdad more than tripled in March, one of many indications that violence has begun to rise again after months of gains in the wake of an American troop increase. Overall attacks on Baghdad more than doubled, to 631 in March from 239 in February, reflecting new strikes against the Green Zone, the fortified headquarters for Iraqi and American officials, as well as renewed fighting in Sadr City between the Mahdi Army and American and Iraqi forces."

The U.S-Iraq Agreement

Seumas Milne writes in the Guardian: "A confidential draft agreement covering the future of US forces in Iraq, passed to the Guardian, shows that provision is being made for an open-ended military presence in the country.

"The draft strategic framework agreement between the US and Iraqi governments, dated March 7 and marked 'secret' and 'sensitive', is intended to replace the existing UN mandate and authorises the US to 'conduct military operations in Iraq and to detain individuals when necessary for imperative reasons of security' without time limit.

"The authorisation is described as 'temporary' and the agreement says the US 'does not desire permanent bases or a permanent military presence in Iraq'. But the absence of a time limit or restrictions on the US and other coalition forces - including the British - in the country means it is likely to be strongly opposed in Iraq and the US.

"Iraqi critics point out that the agreement contains no limits on numbers of US forces, the weapons they are able to deploy, their legal status or powers over Iraqi citizens, going far beyond long-term US security agreements with other countries."