He genuinely surprised Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, the man he came to see, and into whose eyes he wished to look. Poor Maliki. He is America's third try at a parliamentary leader of our newly created Iraqi democracy, the previous governments having disintegrated into incompetence, corruption and violence. Poor Maliki wasn't told until moments before Bush arrived that the leader of the free world was on his way for a face-to-face, eyeball assessment. In the official photos of the trip, Maliki appears somewhat uncertain, like an unwitting accessory. He was given no time to prepare, not even an explanation for Bush about why, just a few days ago, Maliki expressed his outrage about what he called "habitual attacks by American troops against Iraqi citizens. "It is a daily phenomenon," he said, "They crush them with their vehicles and kill them just on suspicion."

Before the meeting, which was to have been a videoconference between Baghdad and Washington, the American side characterized it as a test of whether we could "let go of the bicycle seat and find out if the Iraqi government could remain upright."

Bush said one item on his agenda would be oil. He suggested that Maliki might create a national fund to use Iraqi oil revenues for national projects as a way of building loyalty to the new government.

Iraqi oil, you'll recall, was part of the pre-invasion rosy scenario by which post-Saddam Iraq would be turned into a good, stable, modern, pro-Western, free-market country whose oil revenues would pay for whatever rebuilding was needed. In fact, 6,000 barrels of oil a day are being stolen by warlords, militias, organized crime and political parties. It is free-market oil only in the sense that it is open-opportunity theft, and militias, mullahs, sectarian tribes all have a hand in it.

Maliki's government might have a chance to get a handle on oil if he could accomplish his main objective, which is to control the sectarian violence. His most urgent task, Maliki says, is to "re-establish a state monopoly on weapons by putting an end to the militias." This is a lot easier said than done. Iraq is awash in religious and ethnic militias, criminal gangs, Islamist insurgents, criminally infiltrated, government-financed police forces that are running death squads. Neighborhoods are ethnically cleansed either by Sunni or Shia militias, and more than 100,000 Iraqis have left the country to escape the ever-escalating violence. As columnist Thomas Friedman put it recently, America is "babysitting anarchy."

It is said that the presidential trip was powerful political theater, unfolded with the precision of a campaign event. That's exactly what it was. It enabled Bush to appear presidential, be cheered by the troops and return home to the Rose Garden where he promised once again that America will stay the course, that our country will not lose its nerve. Meanwhile, now relieved of the possibility of indictment, Karl Rove is unleashed, promising in a speech to New Hampshire Republicans that we will not cut and run. It is a sign of things to come.

Bush is running a war that is now costing $200 million a day with no end in sight and which two-thirds of Americans now believe he cannot end successfully. What the Republicans fear is that the midterm elections will become a genuine referendum on that war. Thus, they will characterize critics and demands to set timetables for withdrawal as cowardly, unpatriotic, as undermining our troops. The only way to honor those who have paid the ultimate sacrifice, Bush has said, is to stay the course, to finish the job.

After the recent joint press conference of President Bush and Tony Blair, Scott Ritter wrote in The Guardian: "These two politicians are simply continuing the self-delusional process of blundering down a path in Iraq that can only lead to more death and destruction." That is the truth, and it is no way to honor those who have already died in this corrupt, futile enterprise.