George W. Bush acknowledged on Thursday that America was “tired of war” but showed no sign of shifting policy on Iraq in spite of a White House report that presented a mostly negative assessment of the situation there.

The report said the Iraqi government had failed to bolster adequately its security forces, which were still prone to sectarianism.

Share your views

When and how should the US withdraw from Iraq? Join the debate

“I am disappointed that, after great sacrifice by US and Iraqi troops since the announcement of the surge, the Iraqi government has not met critical political benchmarks,” said John Warner, Republican senator. “That government is simply not providing leadership worthy of the considerable sacrifice of our forces and this has to change immediately.”

While the report on the troop surge concluded that the situation remained “complex and extremely challenging”, Mr Bush said the US could still succeed and vowed not to succumb to mounting pressure to pull out.

“I understand why the American people are...tired of the war,” Mr Bush said. But he added: “To begin withdrawing before our commanders tell us we’re ready would be dangerous for Iraq, for the region and for the United States.”

The report said Iraq had made very little progress developing security forces that could operate independently of US soldiers. It had also shown little success in preventing Iraqi commanders pursuing sectarian goals. “There continues to be evidence of sectarian bias in the appointment of senior military and police commanders,” the report said.

In a symbolic move, the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives on Thursday voted 223-201 to approve legislation to bring combat troops out of Iraq by April 1 2008.

Defying a veto threat from Mr Bush, House Democrats hope the vote will put pressure on the Senate to attach a similar troop withdrawal timetable to a military policy bill it is debating.

Two previous efforts either died in the Senate or were vetoed by the US president.

The White House has stressed that the troop surge was designed to give the Iraqi government time to implement key reforms. But Congress has become sceptical about the ability of Nouri al-Maliki, Iraqi premier, to make progress, as more than 3,600 US troops have been killed since the 2003 invasion.

Mr Bush said he would wait until after General David Petraeus, US commander in Iraq, issued a full report in September before deciding if “adjustments” to strategy were required.

Iraqis, the report said, had made insufficient progress in reversing a ban on former Ba’ath party members in government agencies. The Iraqi government had also not ensured equitable distribution of oil revenues.

Democrats also leapt on reports that intelligence had concluded that al-Qaeda had regrouped to levels last seen in 2001.

“Al-Qaeda was in Afghanistan when they attacked us on 9/11 and they fled to the lawless Afghan-Pakistan border region after the Taliban fell,” said Jay Rockefeller, the top Democrat on the Senate intelligence committee.

“Instead of pursuing them and finishing them off when we had the chance in 2002 and 2003, President Bush chose to invade Iraq thereby diverting our military and intelligence resources away from the real war on terrorism.”