Why does the Bush administration refuse to discuss a "Plan B" for Iraq in case the current surge doesn't succeed? Well, for one, they already tried a Plan B roughly four years ago, according to Phillip Carter at Slate. Despite the administration's "stay the course" mantra, the current troop surge is one of six different plans (if you have a loose definition of a "plan") we've implemented in the last four years, none of which have succeeded.

Below is a rough outline of the six strategies Carter describes:

Plan A: While preparing for war yet trying to publicly appear as if they were doing everything to avoid war, the architects of the invasion threw together an initial plan based more on ideology than reality. It went something like this: We'll quickly take out the existing regime with a "shock and awe" strategy, the Iraqis will greet us as liberators, and after "planting the seeds" of democracy we'll rapidly withdraw the troops leaving someone else to deal with maintenance work after democracy takes root and spreads throughout the entire Middle East.

Plan A ended with Bush declaring "mission accomplished" and an end to "major combat" operations on May 1, 2003.

Plan B: When democracy didn't spring up over night, the administration stuck with the idealistic belief that led to the failure of Plan A, but decided to transfer reconstruction to the Coalition Provisional Authority to give Iraq a little nudge in right direction. Still, Rumsfeld and other officials rationalized the budding insurgency by arguing that freedom is "untidy" and "stuff happens!"

Plan C: By the summer of 2003, "Army and Marine Corps generals" implemented a "combination of heavy-handed combat operations and token reconstruction efforts." This period involved some of the fiercest battles, including assaults on Fallujah in 2004. Although Plan C abandoned the notion that Iraq would miraculously repair itself, it was ultimately an "abject failure that filled detention facilities with thousands of Iraqis, inflamed sentiment against the Americans, and fueled the insurgency."

Plan D: When General George Casey took over after the Abu Ghraib scandal, the administration began discussing for the first time a phased withdrawal. The Iraqis ratified a constitution, and Bush insisted that Iraq's military and police forces were being trained so that U.S. forces could stand down. Under the new plan, the military consolidated onto massive super-bases and disengaged from Iraqi cities, for the most part. Although the progress was slow, the country appeared to be headed in the right direction.

Plan E: After the bombing of the Al-Askari mosque in February 2006, sectarian violence escalated into a borderline civil war. The U.S. plan shifted in focus from phased withdrawal to preventing chaos and genocide. Prime Minister Maliki announced Operation Together Forward, which involved a curfew, increased checkpoints and patrols, and joint raids on suspected insurgent locations.

Plan F: Plan E failed because Casey didn't have enough troops to get the job done, according to Carter. The solution? A troop surge. Despite a few initial successes, bombings have picked up in recent weeks, including an attack that killed 192 people last week. Like its predecessors, Plan F seems doomed to failure; even the surge doesn't provide the number of troops necessary to pull off the mission.

Plan G: Carter suggests Plan G will be "Get out." I don't think we'll reach that point with the current administration, so we'll likely go through a few more "plans" before withdrawal becomes a definite strategy. It would be nice to see a concerted effort to bring in more international forces and pursue political and economic solutions. But those should have been included in Plan A, not G. Let's just hope we don't make it through the entire alphabet before someone straightens out this mess.