Bush Looks for an Exit

Meanwhile, Iraq kept deteriorating, and there was a risk that the panel's proposals would be obsolete before consensus was reached. "It overshadowed everything," says an aide to one member. "They were constantly dealing with new developments over there." Baker turned up last Monday with a draft report he wanted panel members to consider or amend and then get into the President's hands. Democrats led by Hamilton, Perry and Leon Panetta, Clinton's ex--chief of staff, were adamant that the report recommend a firm starting point for troop withdrawals. When the Republicans again refused, members agreed on language that would leave the date vague but the vector clear. And then the group adjourned.

THE ENDGAME

THE HOT WORD IN WASHINGTON THESE days is bandwidth, as in, Does this Administration have the bandwidth to solve all these problems? Even those who back the Baker plan worry about whether there is anyone inside the Administration who can carry it out. There is widespread doubt that the Bush team is emotionally or ideologically able to execute a plan that is so at odds with its collective instincts and that many of its supporters might resist. Of particular concern to members of the study group is the state of the U.S. State Department. Although Rice has restored some of the department's lost influence since replacing Colin Powell, she is currently working without a deputy and has had trouble filling that post. Her top lawyer, Philip Zelikow, is leaving soon, and there is a wide variety of people who wonder whether she--or anyone else--could amass the clout to take on both the Middle East and Iraq security talks in the time that is left to this Administration. That's one reason there are growing calls for a special envoy to the region who can hold all the reins in one hand. Some have even suggested that Bush try to persuade Baker to stay on and take up one last mission for his country.

Bush will put a few weeks between the big Baker-Hamilton rollout and his own restart. White House officials worry that anything faster would look too reactive--a curious instinct, given the public's overwhelming desire for change and the positive response Bush received when he tossed Rumsfeld over the side after the elections. Says a former government official who has known Bush for 20 years: "If he is going to take political advantage of things he might have done anyhow, why not do them fast instead of slow?" It may be that the President is not yet ready to answer the obvious question when the strategy changes: What is the new definition of success? Bush himself teed that up when he told reporters in October, "You all got to understand, and the parents of our troops must understand, that if I didn't believe we could succeed and didn't believe it was necessary for the security of this country to succeed, I wouldn't have your loved ones there."