Craig Crawford's Trail Mix

If another unpopular president ever needs a manual for how to maintain an unpopular war, George W. Bush has written it. Titled “Surge Gambit,” it’s now proved to work well enough to sustain until the end of the Bush presidency a war in Iraq that most in Congress and across the country want to stop.

The manual’s instructions are simple: Create a manageable war within the unmanageable war. Call for a modest increase in troops. Give them a limited and achievable task. Make the debate about that — not about the entire war.

Ever since announcing the surge in January, Bush managed to distract foes from the bigger picture and keep this micro-war front and center. The war’s top general, David H. Petraeus of the Army, served the president last week in his congressional testimony, steadfastly portraying the surge as a success and giving political cover to nervous Republicans, who now seem to have all the encouragement they need to continue opposing Democratic efforts to legislate an end to the war.

The final step in the Bush manual is to begin rolling back the buildup as soon as the commanders provide some evidence to label it a success. By announcing that the extra troops will be coming home — although not detailing exactly when all of them will return — Bush can take credit for winding down the war on his watch, even though his plan would still leave the same number of troops on the ground as were there before the surge.

It is called having it both ways, presenting yourself as seeking common ground with war critics while keeping the war going exactly how you want it. And that is what Bush did last week, using his eighth televised address on the war to portray his modest troop withdrawals as an occasion for unity with his critics. “Those of us who believe success in Iraq is essential to our security, and those who believe we should bring our troops home, have been at odds,” Bush said. “Now, because of the measure of success we are seeing in Iraq, we can begin seeing troops come home.”

Having played out the surge maneuver to his advantage, Bush then added a new distraction that again roiled the war debate and unnerved his critics. He upped the ante by proposing a permanent security relationship with Iraq. Iraqi leaders “understand that their success will require U.S. political, economic and security engagement that extends beyond my presidency,” he declared. “These Iraqi leaders have asked for an enduring relationship with America. And we are ready to begin building that relationship in a way that protects our interests in the region.”

For setting the agenda of the next round in the debate, there’s probably nothing so bold as proposing that the United States never leave Iraq. The clear advantage to Bush is that his move gets everyone bitterly arguing about the future — while the course of the war during his tenure strays out of focus.

The rolling distractions — first the surge and now the notion of permanency — are similar to the way a magician draws attention to one hand while his other hand carries out the trick. Force levels in Iraq will continue to stay high and the war will go on, giving Democratic leaders fits in their failing efforts to satisfy their anti-war base.

Mission Transition

Bush’s winning gambit has forced the Democrats to give up hope that enough Republicans would abandon the president this month and help override vetoes of a legislated timetable for withdrawal. Many GOP lawmakers still publicly complain about the war and Bush’s handling of it, but there are no signs that their concerns go so far as actually voting against him.

Democrats face limited options without the two-thirds majorities necessary to trump Bush. And so “mission transition” has become the new buzz phrase on Capitol Hill for Democrats trying to attract Republicans to their side. The idea is to redefine the mission in Iraq to something that would require fewer troops, rather than mandating withdrawals. This would involve reassigning the military from its combat role in Iraq’s civil war to more of a support function, while still stressing counterterrorism.

While there is a chance to draw Republicans to the mission transition model, it will probably not satisfy the legions of anti-war Americans who voted Democratic for Congress last year and expected that a change in control of the Capitol would get them what they want. Perhaps that’s why Democratic leaders are considering their own gambit in the art of distraction, preparing for 2008 by shifting focus to domestic issues such as student loans, children’s health care and energy. The head of the party’s Senate campaign team, Charles E. Schumer of New York, hinted at the shift to domestic issues last week, saying, “This election is shaping up to be about change. Not only change in Iraq, but change at home.”

If Democrats really do give up trying to legislate their own way in Iraq, it will put the finishing touches on Bush’s manual for how an unpopular war president can beat the political odds.