Correction Appended

Americans now view the war in Iraq more negatively than at any time since the invasion more than four years ago, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.

Sixty-one percent of Americans say the United States should have stayed out of Iraq and 76 percent say things are going badly there, including 47 percent who say things are going very badly, the poll found.

Still, the majority of Americans support continuing to finance the war as long as the Iraqi government meets specific goals.

President Bush’s approval ratings remain near the lowest of his more than six years in office. Thirty percent approve of the job he is doing over all, while 63 percent disapprove.

More Americans — 72 percent — now say that “generally things in the country are seriously off on the wrong track” than at any other time since the Times/CBS News poll began asking the question in 1983. The number has slowly risen since January 2004. Then, 53 percent said the country was “seriously off on the wrong track,” and by January of this year it was 68 percent.

Public support for the war has eroded. In December 2003, 64 percent of Americans said the United States did the right thing in taking military action in Iraq and 28 percent said the United States should have stayed out. The current numbers are nearly reversed, with 35 percent saying the United states did the right thing and 61 percent saying the country should have stayed out. In January of this year, 58 percent said the United States should have stayed out of Iraq and 38 percent said going in was the right thing.

The nationwide telephone poll was conducted Friday through Wednesday with 1,125 adults. The margin of sampling error is plus or minus three percentage points.

A majority, 76 percent, including 51 percent of Republicans, say additional troops sent to Iraq this year by Mr. Bush either have had no impact or are making things worse. Twenty percent of all respondents say the increase is improving the situation.

Most Americans support a timetable for withdrawal. Sixty-three percent say the United States should set a date for withdrawing troops from Iraq sometime in 2008.

While troops are still in Iraq, Americans overwhelmingly support continuing to finance the war, though most want to do so with conditions. Thirteen percent want Congress to block all money for the war.

Sixty-nine percent, including 62 percent of Republicans, say Congress should allow financing, but on the condition that the United States sets benchmarks for progress and the Iraqi government meets those goals. Fifteen percent of all respondents want Congress to allow all financing for the war, no matter what.

The poll found Americans are more likely to trust the Democratic Party than the Republican Party to make the right decisions about the war in Iraq. Slightly more than half of those polled, 51 percent, said the Democratic Party was more likely than the Republican Party to make the right decisions about the war.

More broadly, 53 percent of those polled say they have a favorable opinion of the Democratic Party, while 38 percent have a favorable view of the Republican Party. The Republican Party has not had a majority positive rating in Times/CBS News polls since December 2003.

As for Mr. Bush, 23 percent approve of his handling of the situation in Iraq, 72 percent disapprove; 25 percent approve of his handling of foreign policy, 65 percent disapprove; and 27 percent approve of his handling of immigration issues, while 60 percent disapprove.

On the economy, 36 percent approve of his handling of the issue, and 56 percent disapprove. In the campaign against terrorism, 42 percent approve, and 52 percent disapprove.

Correction: May 26, 2007

An article yesterday about a New York Times/CBS News poll that measured opinion about the Iraq war misstated the date of the first Times/CBS News poll that included a question about whether the United States did the right thing in taking military action in Iraq. It was December 2003, not January 2003. (The war did not begin until March 2003.)

BAGHDAD — Staff Sgt. David Safstrom does not regret his previous tours in Iraq, not even a difficult second stint when two comrades were killed while trying to capture insurgents.

“In Mosul, in 2003, it felt like we were making the city a better place,” he said. “There was no sectarian violence, Saddam was gone, we were tracking down the bad guys. It felt awesome.”

But now on his third deployment in Iraq, he is no longer a believer in the mission. The pivotal moment came, he says, this February when soldiers killed a man setting a roadside bomb. When they searched the bomber’s body, they found identification showing him to be a sergeant in the Iraqi Army.

“I thought: ‘What are we doing here? Why are we still here?’ ” said Sergeant Safstrom, a member of Delta Company of the First Battalion, 325th Airborne Infantry, 82nd Airborne Division. “We’re helping guys that are trying to kill us. We help them in the day. They turn around at night and try to kill us.”

His views are echoed by most of his fellow soldiers in Delta Company, renowned for its aggressiveness.

A small minority of Delta Company soldiers — the younger, more recent enlistees in particular — seem to still wholeheartedly support the war. Others are ambivalent, torn between fear of losing more friends in battle, longing for their families and a desire to complete their mission.

With few reliable surveys of soldiers’ attitudes, it is impossible to simply extrapolate from the small number of soldiers in the company. But in interviews with more than a dozen soldiers in this 83-man unit over a one-week period, most said they were disillusioned by repeated deployments, by what they saw as the abysmal performance of Iraqi security forces and by a conflict that they considered a civil war, one they had no ability to stop.

They had seen shadowy militia commanders installed as Iraqi Army officers, they said, had come under increasing attack from roadside bombs — planted within sight of Iraqi Army checkpoints — and had fought against Iraqi soldiers whom they thought were their allies.

“In 2003, 2004, 100 percent of the soldiers wanted to be here, to fight this war,” said Sgt. First Class David Moore, a self-described “conservative Texas Republican” and platoon sergeant who strongly advocates an American withdrawal. “Now, 95 percent of my platoon agrees with me.”

It is not a question of loyalty, the soldiers insist. Sergeant Safstrom, for example, comes from a thoroughly military family. His mother and father have served in the armed forces, as have his three sisters, one brother and several uncles. One week after the Sept. 11 attacks, he walked into a recruiter’s office and joined the Army.

“You guys want to start a fight in my backyard, I got something for you,” he recalls thinking at the time.

But in Sergeant Safstrom’s view, the American presence is futile. “If we stayed here for 5, even 10 more years, the day we leave here these guys will go crazy,” he said. “It would go straight into a civil war. That’s how it feels, like we’re putting a Band-Aid on this country until we leave here.”

Their many deployments have added to the strain. After spending six months in Iraq, the soldiers of Delta Company had been home for only 24 hours last December when the news came. “Change your plans,” they recall being told. “We’re going back to Iraq.”

Nineteen days later, just after Christmas, Capt. Douglas Rogers and the men of Delta Company were on their way to Kadhimiya, a Shiite enclave of about 300,000 people. As part of the so-called surge of American troops, their primary mission was to maintain stability in the area and prepare the Iraqi Army and the police to take control of the neighborhood.

“I thought it would not be long before we could just stay on our base and act as a quick-reaction force,” said the barrel-chested Captain Rogers of San Antonio. “The Iraqi security forces would step up.”

It has not worked out that way. Still, Captain Rogers says their mission in Kadhimiya has been “an amazing success.”

“We’ve captured 4 of the top 10 most-wanted guys in this area,” he said. And the streets of Kadhimiya are filled with shoppers and the stores are open, he said, a rarity in Baghdad due partly to Delta Company’s patrols.

Captain Rogers acknowledges the skepticism of many of his soldiers. “Our unit has already sent two soldiers home in a box,” he said. “My soldiers don’t see the same level of commitment from the Iraqi Army units they’re partnered with.”

Yet there is, he insists, no crisis of morale: “My guys are all professionals. I tell them to do something, they do it.” His dictum is proved on patrol, where his soldiers walk the streets for hours in the stifling heat, providing cover for one another with crisp efficiency.

On April 29, a Delta Company patrol was responding to a tip at Al Sadr mosque, a short distance from its base. The soldiers saw men in the distance erecting barricades that they set ablaze, and the streets emptied out quickly. Then a militia, believed to be the Mahdi Army, began firing at them from rooftops and windows.

Sgt. Kevin O’Flarity, a squad leader, jumped into his Humvee to join his fellow soldiers, racing through abandoned Iraqi Army and police checkpoints to the battle site.

He and his squad maneuvered their Humvees through alleyways and side streets, firing back at an estimated 60 insurgents during a gun battle that raged for two and a half hours. A rocket-propelled grenade glanced off Sergeant O’Flarity’s Humvee, failing to penetrate.

When the battle was over, Delta Company learned that among the enemy dead were at least two Iraqi Army soldiers that American forces had helped train and arm.

Captain Rogers admits, “The 29th was a watershed moment in a negative sense, because the Iraqi Army would not fight with us,” adding, “Some actually picked up weapons and fought against us.”

The battle changed the attitude among his soldiers toward the war, he said. “Before that fight, there were a few true believers.” Captain Rogers said. “After the 29th, I don’t think you’ll find a true believer in this unit. They’re paratroopers. There’s no question they’ll fulfill their mission. But they’re fighting now for pride in their unit, professionalism, loyalty to their fellow soldier and chain of command.”

To Sergeant O’Flarity, the Iraqi security forces are militias beholden to local leaders, not the Iraqi government. “Half of the Iraqi security forces are insurgents,” he said.

As for his views on the war, Sergeant O’Flarity said, “I don’t believe we should be here in the middle of a civil war.”

“We’ve all lost friends over here,” he said. “Most of us don’t know what we’re fighting for anymore. We’re serving our country and friends, but the only reason we go out every day is for each other.”

“I don’t want any more of my guys to get hurt or die,” he continued. “If it was something I felt righteous about, maybe. But for this country and this conflict, no, it’s not worth it.”

Staff Sgt. James Griffin grew up in Troy, N.C., near the Special Operations base at Fort Bragg. His dream was to be a soldier, and growing up, he would skip school and volunteer to play the role of the enemy during Special Operations training exercises. When he was 17, he joined the Army.

Now 22, Sergeant Griffin is a Delta Company section leader. On the night of May 5, as he neared an Iraqi police checkpoint with a convoy of Humvees, Sergeant Griffin spotted what looked like a camouflaged cinderblock and immediately halted the convoy. His vigilance may have saved the lives of several soldiers. Under the camouflage was a massive, six-array, explosively formed penetrator — a deadly roadside bomb that cuts through the Humvees’ armor with ease.

The insurgents quickly set off the device, but the Americans were at a safe distance. An explosive ordnance disposal team arrived to check the area. As the ordnance team rolled back to base, they were attacked with a second roadside bomb near another Iraqi checkpoint. One soldier was killed and two were wounded.

No one has been able to explain why two bombs were found near Iraqi checkpoints, bombs that Iraqi soldiers and the police had either failed to notice or helped to plant.

Sergeant Griffin, too, understands the criticism of the Iraqi forces, but he says they and the war effort must be given more time.

“If we throw this problem to the side, it’s not going to fix itself,” he said. “We’ve created the Iraqi forces. We gave them Humvees and equipment. For however long they say they need us here, maybe we need to stay.”

MUNSAN, South Korea, May 17 — Trains crossed the border between North and South Korea on Thursday for the first time in 56 years, an event both sides described as a milestone for reconciliation on the divided Korean Peninsula.

As white balloons soared into a blue sky, soldiers swung open gates topped with barbed wire shortly after noon to let the five cars of the South Korean train cross the 2.5-mile-wide demilitarized zone, the world’s most heavily armed border, and enter North Korea.

At the same time, about 144 miles east, a North Korean train trundled down the coast.

Although these were technically just one-time test runs on two short stretches of railroad that were linked through the demilitarized zone several years ago, their symbolic importance was unmistakable. The last trains that crossed the border carried refugees and wounded soldiers to South Korea from the North during the Korean War in 1951.

Photographs of the bullet-scarred, rusting hulks of wartime locomotives trapped in the demilitarized zone have symbolized a divided Korea and a conflict that has never been formally resolved, because the war ended in a truce, not a treaty.

“These are not just test runs,” said South Korea’s unification minister, Lee Jae-joung. “They mean reconnecting the severed bloodline of the Korean nation.” He spoke during a ceremony at Munsan Station, about seven miles south of the demilitarized zone. “The trains carry our dream of peace.”

His North Korean counterpart, Kwon Ho-ung, who was also in Munsan, said the trains represented the “Korean nation’s wish to gallop to the destination of reunification,” despite what he called outside forces — apparently a reference to the United States — that are “not happy with reconciliation among Koreans.”

The South Korean train, carrying 150 people from both sides of the border, pulled out of Munsan around 11:30 a.m. as fireworks exploded overhead. It traveled about 15 miles to Kaesong, a North Korean border town where South Korea runs factories employing less-costly labor from the North. The North Korean train had a similar journey, from the Mount Kumgang resort to Jejin, 15 miles to the south.

South Korea has long dreamed of building a trans-Korea railroad that would connect its trains to China and to the Trans-Siberian Railway. A route through North Korea would provide overland access to the rest of Asia.

A trans-Korea railroad would offer a faster and cheaper way for South Korea to send exports that are now shipped by sea to China and Europe. It would also provide a shortcut for Russian oil and other natural resources transported to South Korea. Such a rail system would save South Korea $34 to $50 a ton in shipping costs, said Lim Jae-kyung, a researcher at the Korea Transport Institute.

But creating such a system, transportation analysts and government officials say, would require years of confidence-building talks and billions of dollars in investment in North Korea’s decrepit rail system.

Officials acknowledge that North Korea will probably have to give up its nuclear weapons and improve its human rights record before it could attract significant investment from South Korea or international development aid. Six-nation talks aimed at ending North Korea’s nuclear weapons programs have been stalled for months.

“I cannot understand why we should give rice, flour, fertilizer and everything else the North Koreans want when they don’t do anything for us,” said Hong Moo-sun, 71, one of a dozen South Koreans protesting just outside Munsan Station on Thursday.

The protesters were calling for North Korea to return their relatives, among the hundreds of people taken to North Korea after the war and believed to be held there against their will.

Members of the Grand National Party, part of the conservative opposition, called the event on Thursday a “train of illusion” organized to draw voters’ attention in an election year.

South Korean officials say a trans-Korea railroad would invigorate inter-Korean trade, which tripled to $1.35 billion last year from $430 million in 2000. It would also bring cash to North Korea, which could collect an estimated $150 million a year in transit fees from trains that pass through its territory, Mr. Lim, the researcher, said.

But procuring international aid to renovate the rail network and letting trains from one of Asia’s most vibrant economies, carrying exports and tourists, rumble through its isolated territory could threaten the North Korean government, experts say. They say North Korea now relies on keeping its people ignorant of the outside world to maintain its totalitarian grip on power.

Both Koreas agreed in 2000 to reconnect their rail systems, which had been severed by aerial bombing during the war. It took three years to relink the tracks on the west and east ends of the border. After four more years of haggling and delays, the North Korean military agreed this month to allow the one-time test runs.

The agreement came after South Korea promised to send North Korea 400,000 tons of rice, as well as $80 million worth of raw materials for shoes, soap and textiles.

South Korea has spent $589 million on reconnecting the rail system, including $195 million worth of equipment, tracks and other material lent to North Korea.

South Korean policy makers have called for patience in working toward reconciliation with the North. They have often been accused by conservative politicians and civic groups of giving in to North Korea’s strategy of extracting economic aid for every step toward reconciliation.

“This is a precious first step for a 1,000-mile journey,” Mr. Lee, the unification minister, said Thursday.

WASHINGTON, May 17 — Paul D. Wolfowitz, ending a furor over favoritism that blew up into a global fight over American leadership, announced his resignation as president of the World Bank Thursday evening after the bank’s board accepted his claim that his mistakes at the bank were made in good faith.

The decision came four days after a special investigative committee of the bank concluded that he had violated his contract by breaking ethical and governing rules in arranging the generous pay and promotion package for Shaha Ali Riza, his companion, in 2005.

The resignation, effective June 30, brought a dramatic conclusion to two days of negotiations between Mr. Wolfowitz and the bank board after weeks of turmoil.

“He assured us that he acted ethically and in good faith in what he believed were the best interests of the institution, and we accept that,” said the board’s directors in a statement issued Thursday night. “We also accept that others involved acted ethically and in good faith.”

In the carefully negotiated statement, the bank board praised Mr. Wolfowitz for his two years of service, particularly for his work in arranging debt relief and pressing for more assistance to poor countries, especially in Africa. They also cited Mr. Wolfowitz’s work in combating corruption, his signature issue.

Mr. Wolfowitz said he was grateful for the directors’ decision and, referring to the bank’s mission of helping the world’s poor, added: “Now it is necessary to find a way to move forward. To do that I have concluded that it is in the best interests of those whom this institution serves for that mission to be carried forward under new leadership.”

Mr. Wolfowitz’s negotiated departure averted what threatened to become a bitter rupture between the United States and its economic partners at an institution established after World War II. The World Bank channels $22 billion in loans and grants a year to poor countries.

But he left behind a place that must heal its divisions and overhaul a flawed, cumbersome structure that had allowed the controversy over Mr. Wolfowitz to spread out of control.

People close to the negotiations said that Mr. Wolfowitz had agreed not to make major personnel or policy decisions between now and June 30. Some bank officials said he might go on an administrative leave and cede day-to-day functions to an acting leader, but that might not be decided until Friday.

President Bush earlier in the day praised Mr. Wolfowitz at a news conference but signaled that the end was near by saying he regretted “that it’s come to this.” A White House spokesman, Tony Fratto, said, “We would have preferred that he stay at the bank, but the president reluctantly accepts his decision.”

More important for the bank’s future, Mr. Fratto said, President Bush will soon announce a candidate to succeed Mr. Wolfowitz, quashing speculation that the United States would end the custom, in effect since the 1940s, of the American president picking the bank president.

Many European officials previously indicated that they would go along with the United States’ picking a successor if Mr. Wolfowitz would resign voluntarily, as he now has.

Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. said Thursday that he would “consult my colleagues around the world” before recommending a choice to Mr. Bush, in what seemed to be an effort to assure allies that the United States would not repeat what happened in 2005 when Mr. Bush surprised them by selecting Mr. Wolfowitz, then a deputy secretary of defense and an architect of the Iraq war.

Leaders of Germany and France objected but decided not to make a fight over the choice and risk reopening wounds from their opposition to the war two years earlier. Some also argued that Mr. Wolfowitz, as a conservative seeking to write a new chapter in a career that had been focused on national security, might bring new support to aiding the world’s poor.

Soon after Mr. Wolfowitz took office, however, he engaged in fights in various quarters at the bank over issues including his campaign against corruption, in which he suspended aid to several countries without consulting board members, and his reliance on a small group of aides.

Mr. Wolfowitz’s resignation, while ending the turmoil that erupted in early April over the disclosure of his role in arranging Ms. Riza’s pay and promotion package, will not by itself repair the divisions at the bank over his leadership, bank officials said Thursday evening.

By all accounts, the terms of Mr. Wolfowitz’s exoneration left a bitter taste with most of the 24 board members, who represent major donor countries, as well as clusters of smaller donor and recipient countries. Most had wanted to adopt the findings of the special board committee that determined he had acted unethically on the matter of Ms. Riza.

But the closest the board came to criticizing Mr. Wolfowitz was saying in that “a number of mistakes were made by a number of individuals in handling the matter under consideration and that the bank’s systems did not prove robust to the strain under which they were placed.”

Also angered was the bank’s staff association, which had called for Mr. Wolfowitz’s resignation in early April. The bank’s internal blogs were filled with denunciations of the action on Thursday evening.

Late in the evening, the association issued a statement saying, “Welcome though it is, the president’s resignation is not acceptable under the present arrangement,” and that it “completely undermines the principles of good governance and the principles that the staff fight to uphold.”

The association represents most of the 7,000 full-time employees at the bank in Washington. Their unhappiness could be a crucial factor in the bank board’s ability to heal the wounds left by the fight over Mr. Wolfowitz. It appeared likely that after Mr. Wolfowitz’s departure there would be a departure of several top aides, including Robin Cleveland, who officials said was involved in the negotiations over the statements accompanying his departure.

During the day, as word spread throughout the institution that Mr. Wolfowitz was close to a deal, some officials said that one of the obstacles was his compensation package. But there was no information Thursday night on whether he would receive any sort of severance package or pension, or be reimbursed for legal fees from his long battle.

Mr. Wolfowitz’s pay package was $302,470 in salary as of 2004 — the bank pays any of the taxes on that sum — and $141,290 in expenses. His contract calls for him to be paid a year’s salary if he is terminated, but it was unclear whether his resignation would be considered a termination as defined by the contract.

Mr. Wolfowitz’s fight for vindication was led by his lawyer, Robert S. Bennett, and negotiated at the bank by the British director, Thomas Scholar, a close associate of Gordon Brown, the chancellor of the Exchequer who is to become prime minister this summer.