Despite polls consistently showing that a majority of Americans want American troops pulled out of Iraq in short order, President Bush is refusing to even consider that option.

In fact, signs are that he is leaning in the opposite direction, choosing to send yet more troops into harm's way.

And despite the obvious, palpable urgency, Bush this week decided he needs more time to think things through -- rescheduling until some unspecified point in the new year an announcement the White House had previously said would come before Christmas.

Doubling Down

John King reported on CNN yesterday: "I talked to a number of senior administration officials today and also some of the outsiders who have been consulted by the administration a part of this review, including one retired general. . . .

"These officials all believe the president is planning to do something big. He is planning to do a substantial policy shift. And one of the sources I spoke to said he believes the president is very seriously considering, in the short-term, agreeing with Senator John McCain and increasing U.S. troop levels in the short-term and also resisting the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group. . . .

"[T]he president, we are told, has asked for more advice about how could he do it? If he wanted to send in 20,000, 15,000 more troops for a few months to try to improve the situation, primarily in Baghdad, how could that happen?

"So they need more time to put all that on the table. They need more time for the new defense secretary to study it."

It sounds a bit like the last gasp of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and his fellow neocons.

Julian E. Barnes writes in the Los Angeles Times: "As President Bush weighs new policy options for Iraq, strong support has coalesced in the Pentagon behind a military plan to 'double down' in the country with a substantial buildup in American troops, an increase in industrial aid and a major combat offensive against Muqtada Sadr, the radical Shiite leader impeding development of the Iraqi government.

"The Joint Chiefs of Staff will present their assessment and recommendations to Bush at the Pentagon today. Military officials, including some advising the chiefs, have argued that an intensified effort may be the only way to get the counterinsurgency strategy right and provide a chance for victory. . . .

"Such an option would appear to satisfy Bush's demand for a strategy focused on victory rather than disengagement. It would disregard key recommendations and warnings of the Iraq Study Group, however, and provide little comfort for those fearful of a long, open-ended U.S. commitment in the country. Only 12% of Americans support a troop increase, whereas 52% prefer a fixed timetable for withdrawal, a Los Angeles Times/ Bloomberg poll has found."

And it's not just the public that's against it.

Writes Barnes: "An increase in U.S. forces is not universally popular in the military. Army Gen. John P. Abizaid, the top U.S. commander for the Middle East, has long argued that increasing the size of the force would be counterproductive, angering the very people the U.S. was trying to help. . . .

"James Dobbins, a former U.S. diplomat and advisor to the Iraq Study Group, said many Iraqis believed that U.S. forces put them in danger, rather than improving security.

"'The American troop presence is wildly unpopular in Iraq,' Dobbins said. 'Any effort to double our bet will lead to ever more catastrophic results.'"

The Delay

Jim Rutenberg and David E. Sanger write in the New York Times: "The White House said Tuesday that President Bush would delay presenting any new strategy for Iraq until early next year, as officials suggested that Mr. Bush's advisers were locked in internal debates on several fronts about how to proceed. . . .

"The White House decision prompted criticism from Democratic Congressional leaders and from at least one Republican senator who said Mr. Bush was failing to show sufficient urgency about Iraq despite months of escalating violence there.

"The Iraq Study Group's report last week portrayed the situation in Iraq as 'grave and deteriorating,' and on Tuesday alone, 70 Iraqis were killed and more than 200 wounded in a truck-bomb attack in a central Baghdad square. . . .

"In an interview, Senator Chuck Hagel, the Nebraska Republican who is often critical of the president's war policy, called the delay 'unpardonable' and added: 'Every day that goes by, we are losing ground.' Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic leader in the Senate, said in a statement, 'Waiting and delaying on Iraq serves no one's interests.'"

The Tony Snow Show

Why the delay? Press secretary Tony Snow derided all sorts of plausible explanations at yesterday's press briefing.

"Q Did the military leaders encourage him to just take a little bit more time?

"MR. SNOW: No, no, no. The President is the Commander-in-Chief; he issues orders. He decided, frankly, that it's not ready yet. . . .

"Q So some might infer that the delay means he doesn't know what to do.

"MR. SNOW: No, well, that would be the wrong inference to draw. . . .

"Q So just to get this clear, the reason for the delay is, number one, the complexity of the Iraq issue, and not because the President learned something in the last week that changed his mind?

"MR. SNOW: That is correct. . . .

"Q Is it possible that the President does not want to announce the deployment of thousands of more U.S. troops to Iraq before the holidays?

"MR. SNOW: No, it has nothing to do with that. Cynical, but false. . . .

"Q. . . . [T]here have been a number of references here about the Baker-Hamilton commission. To what extent is this delay in the expected announcement an effort to put some distance between the release of, and the reaction to that?

"MR. SNOW: It has nothing to do with it, period. Nothing."

Commentary: