What happened to Iraq? This simple question came my way on a cable news talk show the other night, where host Keith Olbermann noted that the violence and chaos is as bad as ever — yet President Bush seems to be holding ground with the public.

My answer upset some of Olbermann’s MSNBC viewers. The policy debate over Iraq has been frozen, I replied, by a combination of Bush’s reluctant but clear acknowledgment of his administration’s past mistakes and the lack of popular alternatives. Together, they’ve given Bush cover to stay the course.

“You are such a jerk,” wrote one viewer, reflecting the general tenor of responses to this Jan. 11 show. “Start thinking about what happens after George Bush.”

Another wrote: “No other option? Remember Rep. Jack Murtha? He said let’s redeploy and let the Iraqis fight their own Civil War.”

By continuing to cite Murtha, the Democratic hawk who caused a ruckus just before the holidays by urging that we begin an Iraq pullout, the president’s foes show just how desperate they have become. Few outside his southwestern Pennsylvania district had ever heard of Murtha, but the vacuum of leadership in his party made him an overnight sensation.

Never mind that Murtha did not call for an immediate and complete pullout, as his anti-war supporters claim, only that we begin drawing down the number of troops and redeploy them elsewhere in the war on terror. What Murtha ignited threatened a full-blown grass fire against the war.

But that movement has yet to materialize — either here in Washington or outside the Beltway. Murtha’s wake seemed to wash over the president, who’s been able to right himself before his Iraq agenda capsized in the churning sea of American public opinion.

One reason is that Democratic leaders were slow to rally around Murtha. It took days for Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi to see their party’s opening to counterpoint Bush. But House Republicans reacted quickly, setting up a vote on whether to immediately withdraw from Iraq, making it seem that this was Murtha’s proposal and forcing most Democrats to vote against a measure that none of them had even proposed.

More significant in the silencing of Murtha, perhaps, was the Bush administration’s gradual co-option of his proposal. Starting with a steady stream of hints, followed by official announcements, the White House unveiled plans for reducing troop levels in Iraq. Even calls for a timetable to reach an end to U.S. occupation got winks and nods in the ether of anonymous administration comments.

Of course, the drawdown that the White House announced only gets us back to the troop levels seen before the Iraq elections, which had sparked a sharp increase of personnel to enhance security for the voting. But it gave many Americans the impression that we are gradually leaving Iraq, which is what most tell pollsters they want.

Add to the mix Bush’s tepid admission of errors — another bone to the polling respondents who describe him as too stubborn — and the boil was lanced.

It is no wonder that those against the war are so frustrated, or get so angry when someone points out that the president has regained his footing with the public. Before the new year, they almost had him down. Polls showed that even moderate Republicans were questioning his leadership. And they look at news from Iraq that is no better than before. Even the much-hyped parliamentary election is mired in controversy and fears that more enemies than friends of the United States could wind up in power.

Call it the infant death syndrome of an anti-war movement. What protester mom Cindy Sheehan started back in August, by camping out near Bush’s Texas ranch, got a boost from Murtha months later. But in the end, most Democrats on Capitol Hill could not bring themselves to endorse Sheehan’s call for immediate withdrawal. Neither could most Americans, according to the polls.

I’m still wrestling, however, with the MSNBC viewer’s admonition that we “start thinking about what happens after George Bush.” It’s a good point, given that we could be talking about the mess in Iraq long after Bush has left office.

For starters, voters should focus on the Iraq question in this year’s congressional elections and in the 2008 race for the White House.

But leaving office without a satisfactory resolution in Iraq would bode poorly for Bush’s place in history, so my guess is that he will manage to declare victory and significantly cut our military presence before he is gone.

Let’s hope he succeeds. It would be nice three years from now to hear someone ask “what happened” to Iraq not for political analysis, but because no more Americans are getting killed there.

Contributing Editor Craig Crawford is a news analyst for MSNBC, CNBC and “The Early Show” on CBS. He can be reached at ccrawford@cq.com.