SOME of the most senior American and British officials responsible for policy in Iraq yesterday gave warning that the country was sliding into civil war, an admission Washington and London have been at pains to avoid for months.

In what could be a turning point in the ill-fated Anglo-American intervention in Iraq, two of the most senior Pentagon officers and the outgoing British Ambassador to Baghdad painted a bleak picture of a country falling into sectarian strife between rival Shia and Sunni Muslim militias.

The most frank disclosure was contained in a valedictory letter written by William Patey, the British envoy to Baghdad, who left his post last week and is now on leave for the rest of the year.

The confidential telegram, addressed to the Prime Minister, Margaret Beckett, the Foreign Secretary, Des Browne, the Defence Secretary, and Jack Straw, the Leader of the House, admitted that the central goal of creating a stable democracy was now under threat.

“The prospect of a low-intensity civil war and a de facto division of Iraq is probably more likely at this stage than a successful and substantial transition to a stable democracy,” wrote Mr Patey, a top Foreign Office Arabist who previously served as Ambassador to Khartoum. “Even the lowered expectations of President Bush for Iraq — a government that can sustain itself, defend itself and govern itself and is an ally in the war on terror — must remain in doubt,” he added.

Mr Patey said that unless the power of local militias were challenged, Iraq could end up like Lebanon, where Hezbollah militants are more powerful than the Government. His remarks contradicted months of assurances from President Bush and Tony Blair that the situation in Iraq was improving and that the country was not descending into sectarianism.

The issue is more than simply semantics. If Iraq does descend into all-out civil war of the type that has gripped large areas of Baghdad, the democratic experiment in Iraq will die. The pressure to bring home foreign troops may become irresistible. A civil war could then drag neighbours such as Iran, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Syria into the conflict.

Yesterday Mr Blair insisted that Britain was determined to stay the course in Iraq and said that that was the conclusion of Mr Patey’s telegram, which also said that the situation was not hopeless.

The document had repercussions across the Atlantic, where the leak came just hours before a stormy session in the US Congress, when Pentagon chiefs were pressed on the subject by the US Senate Armed Services Committee.

“Iraq could move toward civil war,” said General John Abizaid, the top US Commander in the Middle East. “I believe that the sectarian violence is probably as bad as I have seen it.” His remarks were echoed by General Peter Pace, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who said: “We do have the possibility of that devolving into civil war . . . Shia and Sunni are going to have to love their children more than they hate each other.”

Donald Rumsfeld, the US Defence Secretary who sat alongside his generals, avoided commenting directly on the subject. But only last week he had denied that Iraq was in the grip of civil war.

Yesterday he was taken to task by Hillary Clinton, the Democratic Senator for New York. Mr Rumsfeld had earlier refused to attend the committee hearing, claiming that he was too busy, and only recanted after sustained public criticism led by Mrs Clinton.

“Under your leadership, there have been numerous errors in judgment that have led us to where we are in Iraq and Afghanistan,” she told Mr Rumsfeld. “We have a full-fledged insurgency and full-blown sectarian conflict in Iraq. Now, whether you label it a civil war or not, it certainly has created a situation of extreme violence and the continuing loss of life among our troops and of the Iraqis.”

She laid blame for the failures firmly at his feet, accusing him of invading Iraq with insufficient troops and planning, and for underestimating the insurgency and the prospect of sectarian violence. Mr Rumsfeld, already irritated by his generals’ candour, fought back testily with some extraordinary historical revisions.

“The idea that the army was disbanded, I think, is one that’s kind of flying around,” he said. “My impression is that to a great extent that army disbanded itself.” US forces would not get bogged down in Iraq even with the redeployment of troops to Baghdad, he insisted, but stopped short of expressing confidence that the move would quell the violence. “I can’t predict if it will work this time,” he shrugged. “It may or it may not.”

He added: “The Cold War lasted 40-plus years. And the struggle against violent extremists who are determined to prevent free people from exercising their rights is going to go on a long time and it’s going to be a tough one. That does not mean that we have to spend the rest of our lives as United States Armed Forces in Iraq. The Iraqis are going to have to take that over. We can’t want freedom more for the Iraqi people than they want for themselves.”

WHAT THE ENVOY SAID

“The prospect of a low-intensity civil war and a de facto division of Iraq is probably more likely than a successful and substantial transition to a stable democracy”

“Even the lowered expectation of President Bush for Iraq — a government that can sustain itself, defend itself and govern itself and is an ally in the War on Terror — must remain in doubt”

“If we are to avoid a descent into civil war and anarchy then preventing the Jaish al-Mahdi (the Mahdi Army) from developing into a state within a state, as Hezbollah has done in Lebanon, will be a priority”

“The next six months are crucial”

William Patey, outgoing British Ambassador to Baghdad

Times Recommends

• Michael Jackson: Not the final chapter
• Indian Army spends10m rupees on golf buggies
• Sacha Baron Cohen forced to tone down Brüno