The commanding general of the 82nd Airborne Division offered an interesting theory in The Washington Post yesterday for the worsening situation in Iraq. Maj. Gen. Charles H. Swannack Jr. concludes that the constant attacks on U.S. and allied forces were part of Saddam Hussein’s plan all along. Knowing he could not beat the coalition forces during the war, Mr. Hussein planned for a long insurgency after the major combat ended, according to Maj. Gen. Swannack’s comments.

His theory is not universally shared but others cited by the Post recognize a pattern in the recent attacks. “Saddam knew he couldn’t win a war head to head against coalition forces. He was setting the stage for what you’re looking at right now,” said Lt. Col. Oscar Mirabile, a Miami police officer who commands a Florida National Guard brigade that has been in the Suuni Triangle since May.

A CIA report released over the weekend supports this view, saying that troops formerly loyal to Mr. Hussein were caught off guard by the speed of the initial U.S. attack, but are now regrouping. The report went on to warn that if the United States and its allies don’t quickly get the situation under control, Iraqi citizens may stop cooperating in the fight against the insurgents.

Whether the growing number of daily attacks were premeditated, it was clear that something like them could occur. Countries with histories of occupying other lands warned before the war that attacks on U.S. troops would come. Why was the United States prepared for an appreciative welcome and not the deadly guerilla-style attacks? And now that the attacks have been going on for months, with increasing sophistication, why has U.S. strategy not changed adequately to address them? The attacks have killed 37 U.S. and 18 Italian troops in the last two weeks. They have also caused other countries to shy away from sending soldiers to Iraq to help with security and rebuilding.

The U.S. administrator in Iraq, L. Paul Bremer, was hastily recalled to Washington this week and the administration belatedly stepped up its efforts to give a semblance of Iraqi control to the rebuilding process. The administration now supports a re-constituted governing council to replace the hand-picked group that has been criticized for traveling around the world rather than working to craft a framework for a constitution by Dec. 15, as required by the United Nations. The United States is now said to be considering two options. Under one, a national election would be held to choose the council that will write the country’s first democratic constitution. The other would create a provisional government first while a constitution was drafted followed by an election for a permanent government. Either way, the administration hopes for a greater degree of Iraqi autonomy by next summer.

But time is running out – for both ending attacks on foreign troops and for putting the Iraqis in control of their government. Although it did not acknowledge what would happen after U.S. troops marched through Baghdad, it may not be too late for the Bush administration to change course. It must do so quickly and with proper consideration of harsh reality, not its fanciful visions of victory.