It was obvious from a 90-minute discussion with President Bush at the White House recently that he would not cut and run, which excludes the last option. As for the “go long” option, he has little control over it. In two years someone else will be in the White House.

In immediate terms, therefore, Mr Bush is left with “go big”, the option his opponents have already attacked. Those familiar with Iraq know that the real war for its future is waged in the United States and, to a lesser extent, Britain. The terrorists have no hope of riding in triumph into Baghdad, but they continue to fight to persuade US and British opinion that the war is lost and that new Iraq does not deserve further support. Moreover, some in the new Iraqi elite have become fence-sitters. Worried that the US may run away, they have sought insurance from Tehran or, in the case of Sunni Arabs, the jihadis.

So, what should Mr Bush do? The last thing to do is to seek a bipartisan policy. Too many Democrats have invested too much in the hope that Iraq fails for them to agree to help Mr Bush to ensure success.

What is needed, therefore, is a nonpartisan policy. This means a policy that safeguards what has already been achieved in Iraq, without further provoking Democrats. In such a policy, there is room for all three options in the Pentagon paper. It is possible to chew gum and walk at the same time.

The “go big” option is useful if the US commits specialised forces with a clear mission, the success of which could be assessed within weeks. The “go long” option could be exercised by raising the percentage of US training personnel with Iraqi units from 5, as it is now, to 20. There is also room for the “go home” option, needed to give Democrats something to chew upon. Most GIs in Iraq are now in self-defence mode or engaged in routine tasks that could be assumed by Iraqis. The US and Britain could repatriate many of their troops within the next two years.

Mr Bush still has a monopoly on making policy on Iraq because the Democrats, apart from a general anti-war sentiment, have nothing to offer and are unlikely to develop an alternative vision soon. So, to the three Pentagon options, one could add a fourth: go deep! Here are some of the things that the President might consider:

Times Recommends

• The final throw of a gambler
• Basra - here's the good news story
• We're beating crime - believe it