The Iraq war is lost. And even Bush knows it.

As always, it's hard to know when the drip, drip, drip turned into a flood. But some kind of critical mass has certainly been reached regarding US/UK policy towards Iraq and the end game is now being drawn up.

When warmongers like Bruce Anderson start writing articles entitled:

"Those of us who advocated this war have a duty to ask how it turned out so terribly."

It's safe to say the writing is on the wall and that the war is lost. What is undeniable is that the flurry of activity on both sides of the Atlantic represents, in itself, a significant admission that the present situation is untenable. "Staying the course" is no longer a viable option when it is so obvious now - even to the wars most fervent supporters - just how far off course that policy has led us.

1.5 million Iraqis have been displaced since this conflict began. A further 1.6 million have fled the country altogether. It is the largest movement of humans in the Middle East since the Israelis expelled the Palestinians in 1948.

Lancet are stating that 615,000 Iraqis have died as a result of our intervention. It is no exaggeration to say that, whatever their intentions, Bush and Blair have caused more death, pain and hardship in Iraq than even Saddam did.

So now we witness the pro-war advocates readjusting their positions with even Jonah Goldberg at National Revue Online claiming:

that invading Iraq was the wrong decision, but that doesn’t vindicate the antiwar crowd.

I rather think it does, however, in order to make his strangulated point Jonah has to claim that the anti-war crowd "aren't against all wars", a point which I would have thought didn't even have to be made as no-one has ever claimed they were "against all wars". What most of us argued is that the war in Iraq was wrong. It would appear that the wars loudest advocates now wish to agree with us whilst failing to have the dignity to accept that our basic premise was right all along.

So now the Bushites and Blairites have to construct an exit strategy that allows them to mask the sheer scale of their defeat and humiliation.

Bush, as always, excels in his stupidity, arrogance and failure to grasp even the most elementary of points.

He has crafted a plan - if the New York Times is to be believed - that demands that the new Iraqi forces must disarm the militias.

The Bush administration, alarmed by the increasing violence and lawlessness gripping much of Iraq, has decided to force the hand of the embattled prime minister, Nuri al-Maliki. It will push him to agree to a timetable of specific measures aimed at disarming the militias, halting sectarian violence, and shouldering more responsibility for the country's security.

General George Casey and US ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad, the senior US military and civilian officials in Iraq, are drafting a document that will require Mr Maliki and his government of national unity to commit to a schedule of measures designed to foster reconciliation, reconstruction and stability, according to a report in yesterday's New York Times.

The plan is being drawn up in consultation with Iraqi officials as well as figures in the Pentagon, and is likely to cover the period until the end of 2007. It is expected to go to Mr Maliki by the end of the year.

If Iraq fails to meet the crucial milestones, then US officials hold open the possibility of sanctions, though they stress that would not include the immediate withdrawal of US troops. "If the Iraqis fail to come back to us on this, we would have to conduct a reassessment" of the US strategy, the paper quoted a senior Pentagon official as saying.

Quite how the newly formed Iraqi forces are supposed to carry out a task that the superior US forces have singularly failed to do, is not addressed. Indeed, one is left thinking that this is a task that is designed for failure. It is the beginning of an exit strategy and a subtle moving of the blame away from the US failure to establish peace and on to the new defence of "we did all we could, now Iraqis must step up to the plate".

Having invaded and unleashed unimaginable terror upon the civilian population, the US will now seek to blame the Iraqis for the carnage that is currently enveloping their society.

Bush set out yesterday to sound resolute:

In his weekly national radio address, President Bush said that US commanders on the ground were "constantly adjusting their approach to stay ahead of the enemy, particularly in Baghdad". But he said the US strategy in Iraq remained unchanged. "There is one thing we will not do. We will not pull our troops off the battlefield before the mission is complete."

This is, of course, a lie. He will do just that. Even his right wing pro-war supporters have now woken up to the fact that the war is lost. Bush will now scramble to find an exit strategy that pushes the blame towards the Iraqis and away from coalition forces. And, as he does so, he will be ably assisted by the Bruce Anderson's and Jonah Goldberg's of this world who will rewrite history and sadly conclude that their mission was an honourable one but that the Iraqis lacked the bottle to grasp the peaceful democracy that they offered.

There is no honour amongst these armchair generals and no stone that they won't unturn in order to avoid facing the chaos and loss of life that their cheerleading has led to.

Iraq lies broken and they now want to blame the Iraqis for the mess. It is beyond shameful.

We now move into the final stages of the disaster that was the Iraq war. The retreat. It promises to every bit as dishonourable as the initial attack.

tag: Iraq, withdrawal, pull-out, United, States, Bush, war on terror, Iraq war, "Staying the course",