OUR TRUTH KEEPS MARCHING ON (AIN'T THAT AMERICA, BUY A CHEVY)

And when the motor really revs high — as when the show deflects an amateurish Internet scandal involving fake dirty pictures of a contestant, or an “Idol” alumna, Jennifer Hudson, wins an Oscar on Sunday night for her nightingale performance in “Dreamgirls” — it even affords fans a flash of reflected glory. The competition’s finalists may end up in a dubious order (with Ms. Hudson, whom Simon Cowell championed early on, voted off), but each round of “Idol” brings to light stunningly worthy singers. At the same time, it entertains whole families, including the Motown dads and bubble-gum tweens who no turn-of-the-century programmer dared hope would ever share a couch again, much less a protocol for using cellphones to text in votes. It’s a show, in other words, that does exactly what it promises to do. It makes platinum music stars, where “The Apprentice” on NBC mints no great businesspeople, and “The Bachelor” on ABC can’t consecrate a single marriage. And it regularly attracts more than 33 million viewers — young and old, black and white, rich and poor, red state and blue; that’s more than the number who watched the series finale of “Everybody Loves Raymond” on CBS. The content of “American Idol” is also surprisingly wholesome. When a monster hit series amounts to an intergenerational symposium about the music of Gershwin, Mariah Carey and Stevie Wonder , the imperative for niche programming begins to seem quaint. And yet. As the reign of “American Idol” wears on, so does the gnawing suspicion that the whole garish phenomenon is somehow deeply sick. Let us count the ways. In the first season, the worm at the heart of “Idol” was said to be meanness and tackiness. The show was distinctly British, supercilious and cynical. Mr. Cowell, the pitiless judge who still brings to the show the spirit of its British progenitor “Pop Idol,” seemed baffled by the piety Americans brought to the task of singing. Insisting that he wanted nothing but a vanilla hottie to showcase the Pygmalion talents of a guileful music packager, he still couldn’t stop them from singing their hearts out and thanking their moms and God.
To his credit, he eventually let himself be blown away. And he dropped Posh Spice as his paradigm of a musician, settling for Aretha Franklin and Ray Charles. (Mr. Cowell, we shouldn’t forget, used to package puppets, cartoon characters and wrestlers as pop stars; he is new to virtuosity.) He and his compatriots had apparently never tangled with contestants like Kelly Clarkson , who’d grown up singing country, or Ruben Studdard , who’d grown up singing gospel. As for the contestants in those early seasons, their sincerity never dropped. Later evidence of the show’s moral corruption was said to come in the voting. In season three, when La Toya London and Ms. Hudson were precipitously bounced despite stellar performances, the judges — Mr. Cowell, Randy Jackson and Paula Abdul — intimated that there had been a miscarriage of justice. Voters, consultants, auditors and reformers complained of technological snafus, tampering, power-dialers and hackers in cahoots with bookies; charges of systemic racism were even levied, as Ms. London and Ms. Hudson are both African-American. The scandal seemed to capture the spirit of the election year. In May 2004, lamenting the loss of Ms. Hudson from “Idol,” Kate Aurthur wrote in The New York Times, “Like we needed a reminder that the American electoral system is flawed.” In 2005, after displaying some incorrect phone numbers, Fox was even forced to scuttle its schedule and rebroadcast performances for a new vote. “American Idol Outrage: Your Vote Doesn’t Count,” read a May 2005 headline in Broadcasting & Cable magazine. The outcry didn’t stop anyone from trying though, and each finale has set off a bigger flood of votes than the one before. Periodically since the first season, Mr. Cowell, who is the show’s sine qua non, just skips a day. This effrontery has become part of his prissy jerky-boy routine. Fans now watch to see how the show fares without him while he’s “in London on business,” in a mood or otherwise bored by his own hit. Mr. Cowell really keeps us all on a chain, and his strange absences used to cause some in the news media to wonder if “Idol” had lost its ballast. Now they seem like part of the weather, as the ship can mostly steer itself.
The most recent seemingly insuperable problems at “Idol” have not come at the hands of the stern father figure, Mr. Cowell, but from Ms. Abdul, his gentler counterpart. Known at the outset for her busty tops and sweet cheerleading — her “mom I’d like to sleep with” vibe — she has lately become a different kind of mother. Dazed, delirious, sulky, petulant, lascivious: she often looks tired and confused, running some words together and inventing others. Two years ago, a contestant named Corey Clark said Ms. Abdul had courted him and then done him professional favors. ABC deemed the charges exciting enough to devote an ominous and moderately persuasive episode of “20/20” to them, which did double duty as a hit job for the network’s entertainment division. No specifics seemed to stick to Ms. Abdul, who Fox maintained had done nothing wrong, but the aura of loucheness is almost palpable. Gone is the perky soccer mom with the ’80s dance moves. She now regularly wears the pliant smile, smeared makeup and bedroom eyes of a woman who’s about to pass out.
But the personalities of the cast aren’t going to kill this show any more than the chintzy décor or the not-so-shocking voting scandals. “American Idol,” which zigged at just the right time in pop-culture history, revived the square spirit of Lawrence Welk and discovered that we still have a hymnal with Top 40 hits that we might open in unison. The twisted introversion of the panel’s threesome is a serendipitous innovation. Simon, Paula and Randy are much more accessible, paradoxically, than the flirtatious television panels driven by one-upmanship that style themselves as scary cocktail parties. Dad here is maddeningly self-important, and Mom is a spacey doormat. Mr. Jackson, for his part, has come into his own as a caretaking older brother. His arm around the fragile Ms. Abdul seems to console her, and he cuts up with Mr. Cowell just enough for manly credibility without betraying Ms. Abdul. For the American children — in all of us? — who are the show’s base, this gives “American Idol” the ultimate, unassailable brand recognition: It’s a family.

An elite team of officers advising the US commander, General David Petraeus, in Baghdad has concluded that they have six months to win the war in Iraq - or face a Vietnam-style collapse in political and public support that could force the military into a hasty retreat.The officers - combat veterans who are experts in counter-insurgency - are charged with implementing the "new way forward" strategy announced by George Bush on January 10. The plan includes a controversial "surge" of 21,500 additional American troops to establish security in the Iraqi capital and Anbar province.But the team, known as the "Baghdad brains trust" and ensconced in the heavily fortified Green Zone, is struggling to overcome a range of entrenched problems in what has become a race against time, according to a former senior administration official familiar with their deliberations."They know they are operating under a clock. They know they are going to hear a lot more talk in Washington about 'Plan B' by the autumn - meaning withdrawal. They know the next six-month period is their opportunity. And they say it's getting harder every day," he said.By improving security, the plan's short-term aim is to create time and space for the Iraqi government to bring rival Shia, Sunni and Kurd factions together in a process of national reconciliation, American officials say. If that works within the stipulated timeframe, longer term schemes for rebuilding Iraq under the so-called "go long" strategy will be set in motion.But the next six months are make-or-break for the US military and the Iraqi government. The main obstacles confronting Gen Petraeus's team are:· Insufficient troops on the ground· A "disintegrating" international coalition· An anticipated increase in violence in the south as the British leave· Morale problems as casualties rise· A failure of political will in Washington and/or Baghdad."The scene is very tense," the former official said. "They are working round the clock. Endless cups of tea with the Iraqis. But they're still trying to figure out what's the plan. The president is expecting progress. But they're thinking, what does he mean? The plan is changing every minute, as all plans do."The team is an unusual mix of combat experience and academic achievement. It includes Colonel Peter Mansoor, a former armoured division commander with a PhD in the history of infantry; Colonel HR McMaster, author of a well-known critique of Vietnam and a seasoned counter-insurgency operations chief; Lt-Col David Kilcullen, a seconded Australian officer and expert on Islamism; and Colonel Michael Meese, son of the former US attorney-general Edwin Meese, who was a member of the ill-fated Iraq Study Group.Their biggest headache was insufficient troops on the ground despite the increase ordered by President Bush, the former official said. "We don't have the numbers for the counter-insurgency job even with the surge. The word 'surge' is a misnomer. Strategically, tactically, it's not a surge," an American officer said.According to the US military's revised counter-insurgency field manual, FM 3-24, written by Gen Petraeus, the optimum "troop-to-task" ratio for Baghdad requires 120,000 US and allied troops in the city alone. Current totals, even including often unreliable Iraqi units, fall short and the deficit is even greater in conflict areas outside Baghdad."Additional troops are essential if we are to win," said Lt-Col John Nagel, co-author of the manual, in an address at the US Naval Institute in San Diego last month. One soldier for every 50 civilians in the most intense conflict areas was key to successful counter-insurgency work.Compounding the manpower problems is an apparently insurmountable shortage of civilian volunteers from the Pentagon, state department and treasury. They are needed to staff the additional provincial reconstruction teams and other aid projects promised by Mr Bush.The cut in British troops in southern Iraq, coupled with the actual or anticipated departure of other allies, has heightened the Petraeus team's worries that the international coalition is "disintegrating" even as the US strives to regain the initiative in Iraq, the former official said.Increased violence in the south is expected, caused in part by the "displacement" of Shia militias forced out of Baghdad by the US crackdown. American and Iraq forces entered the militant Shia stronghold of Sadr City on Tuesday for the first time since the surge began. No other major operation has yet been attempted there but "we or the Iraqis are going to have to fight them", one US officer said.According to a British source, plans are in hand for the possible southwards deployment of 6,000 US troops to compensate for Britain's phased withdrawal and any upsurge in unrest.Morale is another concern in the Green Zone headquarters: American forces are preparing for a rise in casualties as the crackdown gathers pace. In a message to the troops after he assumed overall command last month, Gen Petraeus praised their sacrifices while warning of more "difficult times" to come."We serve in Iraq at a critical time ... A decisive moment approaches. Shoulder to shoulder with our Iraqi comrades we will conduct a pivotal campaign to improve security for the Iraqi people. The stakes could not be higher," Gen Petraeus said."It's amazing how well morale has held up so far," the former official said. "But the guys know what's being said back home. There is no question morale is gradually being sapped by political debates."The advisers are also said to be struggling to prevent the "politicisation" of the surge by the Shia-dominated government. The fear is that any security advances may be exploited to further weaken the position of Baghdad's Sunni minority.Despite progress this week on a new law sharing Iraq's oil wealth, the Petraeus team believes the government is failing to work hard enough to meet other national reconciliation "benchmarks" set by Mr Bush.Yet it is accepted that the US is asking the prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki, to do what most politicians in normal circumstances would refuse to contemplate. "What we're doing is asking Maliki to confront his own powerbase," one officer said.Possibly the biggest longer term concern of Gen Petraeus's team is that political will in Washington may collapse just as the military is on the point of making a counter-insurgency breakthrough. According to a senior administration official, speaking this week, this is precisely what happened in the final year of the Vietnam war. Steven Simon, the national security council's senior director for transnational threats during the Clinton administration, said a final meltdown in political and public backing was likely if the new strategy was not seen to be working quickly."The implosion of domestic support for the war will compel the disengagement of US forces. It is now just a matter of time," Mr Simon said in a paper written for the Council on Foreign Relations. "Better to withdraw as a coherent and at least somewhat volitional act than withdraw later in hectic response to public opposition... or to a series of unexpectedly sharp reverses on the ground," he said."If it gets really tough in the next few months, it will throw fuel on the fire in Washington," the former official said. "Congress will be emboldened in direct proportion to the trouble in Iraq." If the policy was not judged to be working by Labor Day (the first Monday in September which marks the start of the new political year), Mr Bush could lose control of the policy to Congress and be forced to begin a phased pull-out, he suggested.A senior Pentagon official said this week that it was too early to gauge the strategy's chances of success - but preliminary reports were encouraging. "There are some promising signs. There is a new overall Iraqi commander in Baghdad. A number of joint operations have just begun. The number of political murders has fallen. Iraqi forces are showing up as promised, admittedly a little bit under strength, and are taking up some of the responsibilities that Maliki said he would,"he said. "We have to be realistic. We're not going to stop the suicide bombers and the roadside explosive devices for some time. And the military alone are certainly not going to solve the problem. Maliki has to meet the benchmarks. A civilian surge is needed, too. The Iraqis have to do it themselves."US officials say they also have rising hopes of a breakthrough in Sunni-dominated Anbar province where tribal chiefs are increasingly hostile to al-Qaida and foreign fighters - and are looking to build bridges with moderate Shias.But this week's US decision to join talks on Iraq with Iran and Syria, after previously refusing to do so, is nevertheless seen as an indication of the administration's growing alarm at the possibility of a historic strategic failure.