I was sitting in a café in Washington, DC, last week, reading the papers, when I came across an article that almost made me choke on my blueberry muffin. The gist of the story was that the American military “surge” in Iraq is working. Baghdad is more secure; there are fewer sectarian killings; the number of bombings is down; the policy of “clear and hold” is proving effective.

My reaction had nothing to do with incredulity – although that might well have been in order, given last week’s rash of fatal explosions and mortar attacks in the Iraqi capital. No, I am ashamed to say that I caught myself thinking: “Oh no! I wrote that the surge was a bad idea. If it works, I might look silly.” Unfortunately, I think that kind of reaction is hardly unique in Washington these days. As Congress battles over a new Iraq policy, there are two Iraq wars going on. There is the real war, thousands of miles away, in which people are dying. And there is the domestic political war in Washington, where “Iraq” is above all a means to wrong-foot your political opponents.

The remainder of Gideon Rachman’s column can be read here (FT.com subscribers only).

No sooner had Tony Blair announced a withdrawal of some British troops from Iraq, then it emerged that more soldiers will be going to Afghanistan. This is not so much a scaling back of Britain’s military commitments overseas, as a re-deployment from one battlefront to another.

There is an unstated logic behind the British move. Iraq is going very badly – and the war may eventually be lost. Under these circumstances, it becomes all the more crucial that the western allies prevail in Afghanistan. Two defeats in the "war on terror" (or whatever you want to call it) would be catastrophic.

The implications of the Bush administration’s new Iraq strategy are still sinking in. Two of the most interesting comments I’ve read recently are from Dan Plesch and Niall Ferguson. Plesch argues, all too persuasively I’m afraid, that the Bush administration is gearing up for a military clash with Iran.

That’s a subject I’ll come back to – probably next week. In the meantime, I want to discuss Ferguson’s argument that the United Nations should take over from the United States in policing Iraq. Coming from a conservative historian, noted for his sympathy with the idea of an "imperial" America and his distrust of international institutions, this is a very striking conclusion. In fact Ferguson himself writes: "I never thought I would see myself write these words, but here goes: Call off the green berets. It’s time to send in the blue helmets."

When John F. Kennedy was first asked to send troops to Vietnam, he said this: “The troops will march in; the bands will play; the crowds will cheer…Then we will be told we have to send in more troops. It’s like taking a drink. The effect wears off, and you have to take another.”

Watching George Bush’s announcement that he is sending extra troops to Iraq, I couldn’t help being reminded of JFK’s metaphor – and not just because Mr Bush is a reformed alcoholic.

If everything goes according to plan, President Bush will announce his new plan for Iraq on January 10th. It is already clear that he is going to say that he plans to send more troops to Iraq – the famous "surge". But beyond that, there are some big questions that remain.

There are five issues that I will be particularly interested in: troop numbers – how big will the surge be?; duration – how long will the troops be there?; enemies – are they going to take on the Sunnis or the Shia, or both at the same time?: Iraqisation – will the new security strategy still aim at handing over to the Iraqis as fast as possible? And finally – regional negotiations – is Bush going to try and sugar the pill by launching some new diplomatic initiative?

So it’s "troops out by 2008". That, clearly, is going to be the headline that comes out of the Baker-Hamilton report on Iraq which has just been unveiled in Washington. If only. Unfortunately, the report also contains the crucial qualifying phrase – "absent unforeseen developments". The entire Iraqi misadventure has been one long unforeseen development.

If the Americans are really going to make achieving "success" in Iraq (Baker does not talk of "victory") a condition for withdrawal, I suspect they are going to be there for a long time yet. So the real question ultimately may be at what point does the United States wash its hand of the whole situation – and walk away regardless of the consequences? And that – for understandable reasons – is not a question that Baker-Hamilton can explicitly address.

Apart from the headline goal of withdrawal by early 2008, what else is striking about the report. Three things, I think.