The Big Muddy

With "stay the course" polling poorly, what Bush and Bartlett apparently are trying to do is get credit for the fact that the tactics in Iraq have and will continue to change, while at the same time insisting that their overall strategy and goals remain unchanged -- and sound.

But as I wrote in Friday's column , even the best and most flexible tactics, in pursuit of an ill-chosen strategy, will not achieve the desired goals.

Cutting through the rhetoric, it's quite clear what Bush's Iraq strategy has been up until now. In short: American troops will be there to provide security as long as it takes for a democratic central government to take hold. But there will be no clearly defined metrics against which to measure success, no ultimatums to the Iraqi government, and no timetables -- because those would embolden the enemy.

Thus far, Bush has remained steadfast in this strategy -- even as American casualties spike, as the country descends into a state of civil war, and as the central government has yet to provide any evidence whatsoever of its ability to take real control over anything.

So it would be big news if Bush were finally considering a change in strategy -- not just tactics. And that's precisely what David S. Cloud reported in the Sunday New York Times.

Cloud wrote: "The Bush administration is drafting a timetable for the Iraqi government to address sectarian divisions and assume a larger role in securing the country, senior American officials said. . . .

"[F]or the first time Iraq was likely to be asked to agree to a schedule of specific milestones, like disarming sectarian militias, and to a broad set of other political, economic and military benchmarks intended to stabilize the country.

"Although the plan would not threaten [Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki] with a withdrawal of American troops, several officials said the Bush administration would consider changes in military strategy and other penalties if Iraq balked at adopting it or failed to meet critical benchmarks within it. . . .

"'We're trying to come up with ways to get the Iraqis to step up to the plate, to push them along, because the time is coming,' a senior administration official said. 'We can't be there forever.'"

Cutting through the rhetoric, again, this sounds an awful lot like the beginning of a de facto exit strategy -- because of the unlikelihood that the current Iraqi government could meet even the most elementary milestones -- or an open invitation to a coup d'etat.

Initially, the White House insisted that the Times story was "not accurate" -- but wouldn't say what was wrong with it.

But this morning, rather than confirm or deny the story, counselor Bartlett took to the network morning shows to muddle it.