Here are excerpts from editorials in newspapers around the world:

The Guardian, London, on Prime Minister Tony Blair and Iraq:

Departing from elected office according to a timetable rather than the whim of colleagues or the taste of the voters is quite an unusual business. It leaves the incumbents struggling to pre-empt history.

This week both George Bush and Tony Blair grappled, in very different ways, with the deadly legacy of Iraq, the issue that has dominated the greater part of their time in power. Both understand how deeply unpopular they have become. Neither is yet prepared to acknowledge criticism. Yesterday Mr. Blair managed to address Britain's most senior military leaders virtually without reference to the war that has so profoundly damaged himself, his government, his party and his country. ...

It is not enough to point out that western horror at the cost of war merely plays into the terrorists' hands. ... And there does not have to be an image of the body of a soldier for every flag-draped coffin to raise again the question: is it worth it?

All this does not mean, as Mr. Blair appeared to imply, that the media, the military and the public should adopt a straighter spine and a stiffer upper lip. It is no answer to the much more fundamental questions about the nature of interventions in which his successors may want to engage.

Meanwhile, if Mr. Blair is to restore public faith in his vision of Britain's role in the world, he will have to start acknowledging its flaws as well as parading its ideals.

The Record, Hackensack, New Jersey, on President Bush's decision to send additional US troops to Iraq>

On Thursday, President Bush travelled to Fort Benning, Georgia, to promote his plan of sending more than 20,000 additional US troops into Iraq. ...

In the early days of the Iraq war, top Bush administration officials characterised opposition to the war as unpatriotic. After more than 3,000 Americans have died fighting in Iraq, the president and his advisers can no longer sing that tune. It has been drowned out by buglers playing taps. ...

The addition of 20,000-plus US troops will not bring a diplomatic or military resolution to the Iraq war. It will bring more deaths — American and Iraqi.

The president is confident that an escalation in troop size will stabilise Baghdad. We are not convinced, and neither are congressional Democrats and Republicans. The United States cannot continue to sacrifice the lives of dedicated soldiers in an effort to salvage what Sen. Chuck Hagel said last week was "the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietnam, if it's carried out." ...

Congress has limited options. It could refuse funding the escalation, but that is politically unlikely. The men and women will be sent to fight regardless of congressional support; the troops need to be properly supplied. Congress can pass a resolution stating its lack of support for the president's plan. Americans can and should voice their concerns to congressional representatives and to the White House. ...

We do not lack for courage or patriotism. We do lack more than 3,000 brave Americans who have died in Iraq. A flag-draped coffin should not be an exit strategy.