Bush's dramatic landing on the USS Abraham Lincoln sets "a new standard for high-risk presidential travel" and will "make for a potent campaign commercial next year," said The New York Times.

While Bush and US forces deserve their "celebratory moment," the daily warned that "securing a durable peace in Iraq will be harder than winning a military victory," adding that skill and patience was required.

"The chaotic situation in Afghanistan is no billboard for American talent at nation-building," the Times said.

In a separate analysis, The New York Times said that by stating on Thursday that the war was essentially over, Bush was turning away from foreign policy to domestic issues, making him "somewhat more vulnerable" as people focus on jobs and the economy.

"For Bush, the Military is the Message for '04," was the title of an analysis of the president's speech in The Washington Post that added: "Bush aides are planning to make his war leadership the focus of his 2004 reelection campaign."

But the Post analyst hinted of possible trouble ahead, mentioning that Bush "made no claim that Iraq has or had biological and chemical weapons, though this accusation was the central argument the administration used in justifying the war to the international community."

Wall Street Journal analysts also warned that Iraq can cause problems for Bush, since "voters may judge him by what happens inside Iraq in the months ahead."

Americans will be examining who pays for Iraq's reconstruction, whether the transition to self-government goes smoothly, "and whether the US finds the weapons of mass destruction that Mr. Bush used to justify the invasion."

"Even if Mr. Bush does manage the war's aftermath successfully," wrote The Wall Street Journal analysts, "his aides keenly are aware the economy may well determine his 2004 prospects -- and the news there remains downbeat."

USA Today also highlights the political risks that the missing justifications for the Iraq war pose for Bush.

"In spite of Bush's claim Thursday that 'we have removed an ally of al-Qaeda,' the US has yet to prove strong links between Saddam's regime and the terrorist group.

"And it hasn't found the vast stores of chemical and biological weapons it said Saddam possessed. Until it does, risks are posed by shoehorning the Iraq victory into a preemption doctrine that gives the US the right to strike first against terrorists or nations that sponsor terrorism," said the USA Today editorial.

SPACE.WIRE