Washington, Sept. 8 (Xinhua) -- Another bout of wrestling between Republicans and Democrats began as U.S. Congress reopened for business earlier September, but this time, "compromise" was seen by each side as the strategy to win.

    It is foreseeable that the debate on U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq will escalate next week as American ambassador to Baghdad Ryan Crocker and top commander of U.S. troops in Iraq Gen. David Petraeus present the White House's assessment report on political and security process in Iraq when they attend hearings at the Senate.

U.S. President George W. Bush (R) speaks with General David Petraeus, the US commander in Iraq, upon arriving at Al-Asad Air Base in Anbar Province, Iraq, 03 September 2007. (Xinhua/AFP Photo) Photo Gallery>>>

    President George W. Bush is also scheduled to address the nation to bolster resolve on Iraq, and counter the grief and opposition brought by the sixth anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks.

    Democratic-dominated Congress made the first strike earlier this week on Republican-led White House by releasing two reports saying the Iraqi government and security forces had achieved limited progress despite U.S. long-term and increasingly augmented military existence there.

    Under pressure by the White House, the first report from the Congressional "investigative arm," the Government Accountability Office, decided that the Iraqi government had met or half met seven of 18 goals set by Congress in May, instead of three in its initial draft.

    Another studies by an independent commission headed by Retired Marine Gen. James Johns showed a mixed picture about progress in Iraq, saying that "little" had been achieved there but setting a deadline for U.S. troop withdrawal would be against American national interest.

    The report, as Friday's New York Times said could lend ammunition to both parties, indeed, mirrors Democrats' willing to compromise on Iraq to win more votes of Republican lawmakers to pass a moderate bill on troop reduction from Iraq in the coming months.

    Although slightly outnumbering Republicans in the Senate, Democrats still need support from the rival camp to secure two-thirds of the total 100 votes for their bills on troop withdrawal timelines to avoid any likely filibuster and presidential veto.

U.S. soldiers patrol the outskirts of Baghdad, September 4. (Xinhua/AFP Photo) Photo Gallery>>>

    Similar to those attempts earlier this year, the Democratic is considering to enforce a small number of troop reduction before the end of 2007 by proposing a short-term spending bill that would pay only for logistics in bringing 160,000 troops home from Iraq instead of combat, far less than the over 147 billion U.S. dollars that Bush needs to continue to fund the war through budget year 2008 staring from Oct. 1.

    Democrats including Senate Majority leader Harry Reid said they were willing to cross the party line and win over those Republicans who expressed their reservation about Bush's war policy or felt frustrated by little political and security progress made by the Iraqi government.

    "Many of my Republican friends have long held September as the month for the policy change in Iraq," he said, "It's September."

    Symbolic reduction

    The Republicans are also required by political reality to consider making compromise to retain the balance of power with Democrats in Congress and safeguard its administration after 2008.

    During a surprise visit to Iraq last week, Bush said the decision on troop levels should be based on recommendations from military commanders.

    Analysts said that Republican support could hinge on Petraeus' testimony starting next Monday in Senate. If he can convince lawmakers that progress U.S. troops had made in the recent months could lead to bigger gains, Republicans might be willing to spare more patience on Bush's war policy until next spring.

    However, they will be more easily persuaded if the White House allows a small amount of troop reduction by the end of this year.

    Before giving any recommendation officially, Petraeus hint in many occasions that he would advise the president to order a symbolic cut in troop number within this year but give more time to his current war strategy in hopes of extending military gains in Baghdad.

    Bush was also suggested to consider other options including shortening the troops' duty tour in Iraq from 15 months to 12 months, his advisers said.

    As far as enough

    It is complicated by the presidential campaign scenario that how far both parties can go to make compromise for a win-win deal on troop levels in Iraq.

    More than one year before race enters its final phase, Democrats need to score on U.S. troop reduction at the same time keep enough distance from Bush's war policy to continue to capital on its unpopularity.

    For their part, it will also take time for Republicans to figure out how to remain a player in the Middle East after withdrawal from Iraq without incurring domestic public and political opposition.

    Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell told reporters last week that he would like to ensure a long-term U.S. presence in the region to fight al-Qaida and deter aggression from Iran.

    "I hope that this reaction to Iraq and the highly politicized nature of dealing with Iraq this year doesn't end up in a situation where we just bring all the troops back home and thereby expose us, once again, to the kind of attacks we've had here in the homeland or on American facilities," he said.

    Some elite Democrats tried to address the concern in a way more relying on multilateral institution. Former State Secretary during Bill Clinton administration Madeleine Albright said in an analysis published in the Washington Post on Thursday that given the depth of the sectarian divisions within Iraq, such a fundamental shift will not occur through Iraqi actions along, given America's lack of leverage, it will not result from U.S. patrols, benchmarks, speeches or "surprise" presidential visits to Iraq, the coordinated international assistance is left as the only option.

    That can be viable after the United Nation, European alliances and the Middle East key players including Saudi, Jordan and Syrian all pledged to become involved in rebuilding the peace for Iraq and the region, she said.