PRESIDENT BUSH abruptly reversed the central thrust of his Iraq policy yesterday, turning to the UN to help to extricate the US from its increasingly costly postwar plight.

American officials began circulating the text of a new draft resolution designed to widen the role of the previously spurned UN, spreading the financial and human burden of rebuilding Iraq.

The move marked the Administration’s most dramatic change of direction since the start of the war. Last year, when the UN refused to back military action against Saddam Hussein, Mr Bush said it risked “irrelevance”.

But faced with mounting casualties, rising costs and increased unrest, the White House has been forced to seek help from a body reviled by Washington conservatives.

The volte-face coincided with a Congressional Budget Office report that America’s military commitment to Iraq was unsustainable at present levels. It said it must spend billions more, reduce the force in Iraq or spread its forces too thinly elsewhere. A separate internal Pentagon report admitted that the prewar planning for securing the peace had been hurried and inadequate.

Dana Allin, an expert on transatlantic relations at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, said the reversal represented “a defeat for the idea that the US can do this more or less on its own”.

But, despite the American climbdown, it was far from clear that other UN Security Council countries would approve the plan. British officials predicted that France, the target of venomous American rhetoric for failing to support the war, would try to extract a hefty political price.

The draft text envisages an American commander retaining overall control of a multinational military force. But in a series of political and military concessions outlined to the UN by Colin Powell, the US Secretary of State, the force would report regularly to the Security Council in New York, and a “unified” command structure would include officers from countries offering troops.

General Powell said that the UN would be invited to bring its “great skills” to three key areas where it would be given an expanded role: reconstruction, generating overseas aid, and creating a new electoral system.

In another significant shift, General Powell said that the draft resolution invited Iraq’s Governing Council to propose a timetable for taking over the running of the country. Putting the Iraqis in the driving seat has been one of the key demands of European governments.

Britain, which holds the UN Security Council presidency, expects the text to be debated within a fortnight and to be put to the vote in mid-September, ahead of a UN General Assembly meeting to be attended by Mr Bush and other world leaders.

The British are again expected to act as go-betweens to bridge the divide between America and continental Europe. “It is in everyone’s interests to put the past behind us and work together on this,” a senior official said. “I think we will get it (the resolution) passed.”

General Powell has telephoned his British, French, Russian and German counterparts and described the initial reaction as “positive”. Scott McClellan, the White House spokesman, said: “No matter where you stood on the decision to confront the threat, we now all have a stake in helping the Iraqi people.”

With a UN mandate, India has said it may provide up to 17,000 troops, making it the second largest contributor after America. Pakistan is considering sending 10,000 predominantly Muslim troops, and more could come from key states such as Turkey. On a smaller scale, a Polish-led multinational force yesterday took over command of Iraq’s south-central zone from US Marines.

Washington also hopes its change of course will encourage financial burden-sharing. An international donors’ conference to provide some of the billions of dollars required for reconstruction is scheduled for Madrid next month.

Washington’s change of heart was prompted by four car bomb attacks in the past month, the deaths of 67 American soldiers from hostile action since the combat officially ended on May 1, and costs of about $1 billion a week. Iraqis have grown increasingly angry at the coalition’s failure to ensure security.

In the US, polls show declining support for America’s military presence in Iraq and for Mr Bush, who faces re-election next year. The Democrats’ presidential candidates have increasingly attacked Mr Bush’s Iraq policies, and senior Republican congressmen have started pressing him to come clean about the costs.

Times Recommends

• Fish and chip shops ‘selling cobbler as cod’
• T in the Park festival at Kinross
• How to get Madonna’s Thighs