U.S. has many options in Iraq, none easy

Shift power to a 'strongman'? Ask Iran for help? Choices reflect varying degrees of gloom.

By Paul Richter, LA Times Staff Writer

WASHINGTON — The debate over U.S. options in Iraq has intensified since the midterm election, but as officials await the recommendations of a high-profile study group, few good policy choices have emerged and the outlook on the war has grown increasingly pessimistic.

A change of course could become a turning point for the U.S. mission, and the six most-discussed options reflect varying degrees of gloom. The Bush administration advocates a relatively optimistic plan, calling for small-scale adjustments to the U.S. approach, or temporary troop increases, in hopes of stabilizing the country and giving its frail government a chance to take hold.

But pessimists contend that the United States must develop an end point for its mission. They say U.S. and Iraqi leaders need to consider dividing the country, shifting more of the burden of stewardship to its neighbors, or even replacing its Western-style government with a "strongman."

President Bush continues to publicly rule out some choices, such as troop withdrawals or initiating talks with countries such as Syria.

But behind the scenes, his top civilian and military officials are furiously rethinking all the options — including some that already have been tried and rejected.

But all concede, as Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said last week, that "there is no magic bullet."

(The rest is here.)