Washington's Worst-Kept Secret: Changes Are Coming in Iraq Policy

(2 of 3)

So loud has the chorus of doubt in Washington grown over whether the government of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki will be able to take the necessary steps to reverse the sectarian tide — such as curbing the Shi'ite militias to whose political leaders he remains beholden — that President Bush on Monday had to phone Maliki to reassure him that he still had U.S. support. (That may have been a comfort to Maliki, since the Iraqi capital has also been awash with rumors of a U.S.-backed coup that would replace Maliki with a "strongman" capable of getting the job done.)

With no "milestone" event such as an election on which to pin hopes for a turnaround, Washington's bipartisan search for alternatives grows more frantic. Baker, in his public comments, has hinted at the need to pursue a damage-control formula with more modest goals that would essentially abandon the Bush Administration's dreams of a "New Middle East" and instead draw some of the regional power players least loved by Washington into stabilizing Iraq. He has made clear his belief that the U.S. would be more prudent in aiming for something less than democracy in the Middle East, and the broad themes reportedly being considered by the panel are "containment" and "stability," catchwords more traditionally associated with the "realist" school of U.S. foreign policy of which Colin Powell was the only consistent advocate in the top ranks of the Bush Administration.