The Iraq Study Group is today regarded in America and beyond as the last hope of delivering US forces from the quagmire in Iraq and salvaging some good from the disaster of the US-led invasion and its aftermath.

Unfortunately, there are no simple solutions to a hugely complicated problem that combines everything from military tactics to local politics and regional diplomacy.

One safe prediction to make about Iraq is that the country will be violent, unruly and a source for regional instability for many years to come, whatever the recommendations by the Iraq Study Group.

The main proposal is expected to be a major shift in US military strategy. US combat troops will be gradually phased out and instead take on a support role behind Iraqi forces. US forces would remain in large numbers but be confined to training or remain garrisoned in large military bases, in case they are needed to reinforce the Iraqis.

While this appears a logical move, it is fraught with problems. The Iraqi forces have not taken up security responsibilities for a very good reason. They are not trained and equipped to take on the insurgency. Very often their ranks are riven with ethnic and sectarian divisions. Their operations often seem to support local militias rather than the interests of the state.

Also, they do not have adequate armour nor do they have an air force, key factors in establishing themselves as a credible fighting unit. There is a suspicion that American commanders have deliberately not supplied the Iraqis with the heavy weapons they need because they fear the arms could one day be turned against them.

On the diplomatic side, much has been made of the Group's widely expected proposal that America engage with Syria and Iran to help stabilise Iraq rather than their present policy of undermining their neighbour.

This also makes perfect sense, but executing the new policy is fraught with difficulties. Both countries are likely to demand a high price for their cooperation.

In Iran's case this will probably take the form of demanding an end to Western pressure to halt its controversial nuclear programme, which Washington suspects is a cover for building an atomic bomb.

In Syria's case, Damascus would like America to drop its support for the beleaguered Lebanese government and halt efforts by the UN to try those responsible for the assassination of Rafik Hariri, the former Lebanese prime minister, whose murder is widely blamed on Syrian intelligence.

What makes the Iraq Study Group's findings of interest is not so much what they recommend but the likelihood that a weakened President Bush will have to take the conclusions seriously and alter his policy accordingly.

If nothing else, America will at least begin to have an honest debate about Iraq and how best to extricate itself from the mess.

Times Recommends

• 'New York has lost its edge'
• Copenhagen will fail – and quite right too
• More than 17,000 new underwater species found