BAGHDAD — America’s top representatives in Iraq will set out the full range of military options, including withdrawal, in a report to the U.S. Congress.

The report, due in mid-September, will set out the logistical and political implications of full-scale withdrawal; a partial withdrawal; continued reinforcement, and of declaring Iraq a failed state — a move that would put the U.S. military back in the role of occupiers.

In addition, it will also attempt to shift attention from the military “surge” of extra forces in Baghdad.

Military planners believe the debate over the war, both among politicians and among the wider American public, is detached from the practical realities. The difficulties of executing a large-scale withdrawal have not registered with Americans.

“There’s absolutely no attention on what a withdrawal will mean,” said one military official in Baghdad. “There’s also a danger that if incremental progress is being made it will be undercut by the politics.”

The logistical hurdles to withdrawal are immense but rarely discussed. It would take 10 months using a fleet of 3,000 trucks to evacuate to Kuwait all the equipment and infrastructure on American bases.

With the final brigade of the “surge” due to deploy this week, the prospects of success for military operations should emerge by September. Meanwhile, America’s focus on the ground will turn to achieving complementary political progress.

Ryan Croker, the American ambassador, adopted a low-key role on arrival two months ago, but that is expected to change as his government pushes Iraqi politicians to fulfill promises they gave on reconciliation and on implementing legislation to equitably share the country’s wealth.

The Washington Post reported yesterday that US military officials in Iraq favor cuts of two-thirds in the numbers of U.S. troops to 50,000 by the next presidential inauguration in January 2009.

But Raymond Odierno, the second-ranking U.S. general in Iraq, said a precipitous withdrawal would be disastrous. “We’re not going to go from where we’re at now to zero overnight,” he said.

The newspaper said the commanders back a “go long ” approach: keeping 20,000 troops to back up Iraqi forces, plus 10,000 for training local soldiers. In addition, a large counterterrorist Special Forces presence would remain.

Two alternative approaches known as “go home,” (withdrawal) and “go big ” (clustering on large bases) have also been considered.

Commanders now dismiss the attempts back in 2005 and 2006 to send troops home as a “fruitless” rush to a transition to a predominantly Iraqi force.

One U.S.commander told the newspaper his greatest fear remained insurgents over-running the Iraqi army if the U.S. scales down its troops too quickly.

“My nightmare — the thing that keeps me up at night — is a failure of Iraqi security forces, disastrously mixed with a major Samarra mosque-type catastrophe,” Major General Joseph Fil said.

The bombing of the Shiite Golden Mosque of Samarra in February last year is widely seen as the catalyst to Shiite-Sunni bloodletting.