WASHINGTON, Sept 5: The United States spied on Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki and his government even as President George Bush vowed a strong relationship with the Iraqi leader, according to a new book reported by the Washington Post on Friday.

The book, by Post investigative reporter Bob Woodward, says the surveillance worried senior US officials, the Post wrote.

“We know everything he says,” according to one source cited by Woodward discussing the spying operation that also targeted Mr Maliki’s staff and others in the government.

An official familiar with the surveillance “recognised the sensitivity of the issue and then asked, ‘Would it be better if we didn’t?’”

The White House declined to comment directly on the charges, but Baghdad said it would demand an explanation.

“I am not going to comment on that assertion in the Woodward book,” spokeswoman Dana Perino said.

“What I will tell you is that we deal with Prime Minister Maliki all the time. Our ambassador sees him almost daily and the president speaks to him by secure video teleconference at least every other week. We know what he thinks because he tells us in a very candid way,” she said.

Iraqi government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said in a statement that Baghdad “will raise this with the American side and we will ask for an explanation.

“If it is true, if it is a fact, it reflects that there is no trust and it reflects also that the institutions in the United States are used to spy on their friends and their enemies in the same way,” Dabbagh added.

“If it is true it casts a shadow on future relations with such institutions.” Woodward portrays a Bush administration plagued by divisions, with top generals staging a “near revolt” in late 2006 over his plans to deploy more troops to Iraq.

The Joint Chiefs of Staff believed their advice was not reaching Bush, and Admiral Michael Mullen, then chief of naval operations, feared the US military would “take the fall” for any failure in Iraq, according to the book.

Gen George Casey, then commander of US-led forces in Iraq, and Gen John Abizaid, former head of US Central Command, opposed the troop surge that Bush ordered, as did then defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

Casey even referred to Baghdad as a “troop sump”. Within Bush’s administration, only the national security council staff strongly supported the surge strategy — which has since been praised as a military success.

Bush decided during the internal debate to sack Rumsfeld, who was defence secretary throughout the war, according to the book.

He selected Rumsfeld’s replacement, Robert Gates, without consulting Vice- President Cheney, Woodward wrote.

Bush informed Cheney of his decision on Nov 6, 2006 — the day before US elections in which the Republicans lost control of Congress.

“Well, Mr President, I disagree,” Cheney is quoted as saying, “but obviously it’s your call.”

Woodward said the increase in combat troops was not the main factor in the reduction in violence in Iraq over the past year. He credits “groundbreaking”covert intelligence operations that helped identify militant leaders and key figures in Al-Qaeda in Iraq.

But he does not reveal much detail about the covert techniques, saying that US officials asked him not to disclose the information for national security reasons.

“The War Within: A Secret White House History, 2006-2008” is the fourth book by Woodward looking at Bush’s handling of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars after the Sept 11, 2001, attacks. It will be published on Monday.

Woodward rose to prominence in the 1970s with fellow Post reporter Carl Bernstein for exclusive reports on the Watergate scandal that eventually led to the resignation of president Richard Nixon.

Bush was interviewed for the new book and defends the invasion of Iraq, but acknowledges it has caused bitter opposition at home.

The president described the invasion as part of a reshaping of US power in the Middle East. “And it should be,” Bush is quoted as saying. “And the reason it should be: It is the place from which a deadly attack emanated. And it is the place where further deadly attacks could emanate.”

But he adds: “This war has created a lot of really harsh emotion, out of which comes a lot of harsh rhetoric. One of my failures has been to change the tone in Washington.”—AFP