Among the ''benchmarks," the dates certain, and the dates uncertain for the withdrawal of US forces from the mess President Bush has made of Iraq, there are two important questions:

Are these alternatives to a wretched situation really alternatives? And how much difference is there really among them and between them and Bush's secretive, deceiving status quo?

In just a few weeks, after yet another round of voting and jockeying, Iraq is going to have an elected government, and the question of whether Americans should fight and die for it is going to be front and center.

Over here, where politics sets the contours for what goes on where the fighting is, these questions are not as partisan as the media would suggest. The vast majority of Republicans in the Senate are now aboard the benchmarks bandwagon they once helped the administration resist.

Those who have read the resolution that passed this month by a lopsided margin know that among the demands for specific targets in training fully combat-ready Iraqi battalions there is language setting the stage for withdrawal.

The assumption is that there is a way to achieve sufficient success in preparing Iraq to stand on its own against the insurgency. There is also an assumption that it is helpful to build a fire under both the fledgling Iraqi government and the Bush administration -- hence the benchmarks.

Among the 19 senators who voted against the resolution offered for the leadership by Republican John Warner of Virginia, two names stand out -- John McCain and John Kerry. To possible presidential candidate McCain, there have never been enough US boots on the ground, the best way to get American forces out is to win the war, and we should remain for however long that takes.

You would think that would be Bush's clear position, but you would be wrong. It might once have been. However, Bush is getting ready to reduce the troop presence below its current level of around 150,000 after next month's parliamentary elections.

Beyond that, the president's sorry record of secrecy and deception makes guessing silly. What is noteworthy is that the recent statements of Donald Rumsfeld and Condoleezza Rice suggest something between a hope and a plan to draw down further next year; whether that would be based on claims of success or the actual achievement of it is unclear, but Vice President Cheney's comparative quiet on the subject suggests a policy conundrum and a battle still unfolding.

What is also noteworthy is that from outside the Bush circle -- from McCain and neoconservative true believers -- there are frequently aired concerns that Bush may reduce the force level more for political reasons that purely military ones. Their concerns would be even more vocal were it not for their uncertainty over what kind of government Iraqis will elect and whether it will respond to the wishes of frustrated citizens by climbing on the benchmark or date certain bandwagons.

But to possible presidential candidate Kerry, the Senate resolution was so watered down that it failed his test for specificity on a withdrawal plan. The demand for one from Bush was the subject of a separate amendment from Democrat Carl Levin of Michigan that failed in a 58-40 vote.

Kerry's position, however, was unusual among Democrats, who as the ''out" party tend to be all over the map on the issue, reflecting the public's ambivalence as much as their party's disarray. The final tally on Warner's proposal included yes votes both from Democrats who favor setting a date (Russ Feingold of Wisconsin) and those who do not (Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden).

With all this as background, some tentative answers to the basic questions are possible. The politicians here are not so much proposing alternatives as attempting to pressure Bush on behalf of a restive public that prefers the truth and wants results from a clear policy next year. It should be obvious, but needs emphasizing, that Congress is not going to legislate an end to the US involvement over Bush's objection.

The differences among a specific proposal for a specific date (Kerry or Representative Jack Murtha of Pennsylvania or Feingold), a proposal to train Iraqis faster and better (Biden), and a simple statement that the next 150 to 180 days will be decisive (Warner) is not that great as a practical matter.

The real gulf is between the pressure for a decisive turn next year and an indefinite commitment from an untrustworthy administration. If it is not bridged by results or changes in policy, Bush's troubles will only deepen.

Thomas Oliphant has been a correspondent for The Boston Globe since 1968 and its Washington columnist since 1989. A native of Brooklyn, a product of La Jolla High School in California, and a 1967 graduate of Harvard College, he has been with the paper in Washington since 1970. Prior to that he covered the political, urban, and campus unrest of the 1960s.

© 2005 Boston Globe

###