Iraq War: More Signs of Panic?

I really don't know what to make of the latest news about reconsideration of the transition plan to Iraqi sovereignty. This could be foundering. Or it could be deliberate obfuscation while some new course has been decided upon: U.S. Plan to Transfer Power in Iraq May Shift Drastically Washington Post 02/06/04.

But one thing that none of us should overlook is this (my emphasis):

The Bush administration still publicly clings to its transition plan, but a U.N. team scheduled to arrive in Iraq as early as Friday has been given a free hand to present its own blueprint for the country's political transition if it determines elections cannot be held by June in Iraq, U.S. and U.N. officials say.

This is in line with what Juan Cole has been discussing. He links to a Washington Times article reporting on Bush's recent meeting with UN General Secretary Kofi Annan which says, "But Mr. Annan said the president pledged to support whatever agreement the United Nations can achieve for elections of a transitional Iraqi government, which the United States wants to take full control on July 1."

Cole comments: "Dick Cheney and Richard Perle must be sitting at some bar on K street, haggard, and throwing back shots. 'A year ago, the UN was history,' they commiserate. 'How did this happen?'"

He also links to a blogger called Swopa, who sees the current Bush strategy this way:

The broad strokes of the new Bush policy are clear: We're going to hand power over to somebody in Iraq on July 1, and as that date approaches we're going to be decreasingly picky over who that somebody is and how the transfer happens. The important thing is that we put someone local in charge before the fall election campaign, in the (perhaps vain) hope that Iraqis unhappy with the arrangement will shoot at each other rather than at Americans.

I'm not convinced that's quite what's going on. But that's certainly one plausible way to process what's happening.