Changes may not satisfy a restless public

WASHINGTON -- The words seemed changed -- communicating impatience with the Iraqi government, and the need for more tangible improvements on the ground.

The attitude, too, seemed changed -- admitting that violence had surged in 2006, and that a greater effort was needed.

But in the end, President Bush's policy on Iraq may not have changed enough to satisfy an increasingly restless public.

Through the weeks that Bush has said he was developing a new strategy, Americans have been divided over whether to start withdrawing troops immediately or to keep them in place until conditions on the ground stabilize.

But the people have been unified on one point: The policy must change. And while political attention in recent days has fixated on Bush's call for a "surge" of 21,500 more troops, the more important question for the American people is whether the strategy, rather than the numbers, is truly different.

There was little indication last night that it is.

While the surge in troops has symbolic resonance -- to some, a show of commitment; to others, a painful echo of Vietnam-era escalation -- it doesn't by itself amount to a change in strategy: it equals less than a 17 percent increase from the current 132,000 troops.

And while the president explained that the greater numbers would be centered on Baghdad, curing a lack of firepower that has doomed previous efforts to secure the Iraqi capital, the underlying strategy, bringing peace to the capital, in the hopes that it will lead to peace in the other provinces, remains unchanged.

Other "changes" identified by Bush -- including those he attributed to the bipartisan Iraq Study Group -- struck notes that were familiar from past Bush speeches on Iraq: accelerating the training of Iraqi soldiers; using Iraqi units to replace Americans where possible; increasing the speed of reconstruction to bolster the confidence of citizens.

The Iraq Study Group offered other recommendations that would have marked a greater change, especially its call for negotiations with Iran and Syria. But Bush immediately rejected that recommendation, and last night offered only harsh words for Syria and Iran, which he accused of aiding attacks on US troops.

"We will interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria," Bush stated, in a line that may fuel speculation about a new, more bellicose posture toward those countries.

But Bush never elaborated on that point, and spent much of the speech reiterating his longstanding conviction that freedom in Iraq will transform the entire Middle East.

Americans have heard that vow many, many times by now, and its power is clearly fading.

In November's elections, voters rejected Bush's "stay the course" message more strongly than any particular strategy. That's why many analysts argued that Bush would go furthest toward regaining public support for the war by proposing a clearly different game plan.

"There's a great dissatisfaction with the status quo," said Carroll Doherty, associate director of the nonpartisan Pew Research Center, which has closely monitored public opinion on the war. "The public thinks the United States should change strategy or start winding down. No one supports the current strategy."

Last night, Bush's new strategy sounded too much like his old strategy. His delivery was intentionally muted, to avoid any hint of bravado. But his admission of mistakes was oblique and seemed almost grudging: "Where mistakes have been made, the responsibility rests with me," he said.

What wasn't grudging was his reiteration of all his familiar talking points, from heralding the historic gains of the Iraqi elections, to stressing the importance of Iraq in the wider war against terrorism, to attributing the painful losses of a war he initiated to "the burdens of freedom."

Now, the most immediate obstacle to Bush's strategy in Iraq is that not enough Americans believe his talking points any more.