President Bush is a blunt man who often poses things in black-and-white terms. He likes to set straightforward goals. Several in recent months stand out.

One goal of the war on terrorism, Mr. Bush has said, is to capture Osama bin Laden “dead or alive.”

Another is to oust Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. “He is a problem, and we’re going to deal with him,” the president has said.

And in what aides have termed the Bush Doctrine, he told Congress every nation must decide, “Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.”

Six months after the start of the military assault on Afghanistan, the president remains confident he will capture Osama bin Laden. And he rarely misses an opportunity to make clear his ultimate goal of overthrowing Saddam Hussein.

But the complexities of the Middle East have blurred the clear line with regard to terrorism.

From the days before he took office, Bush established a close relationship with Ariel Sharon, the architect of many hard-line Israeli policies aimed at the Palestinians and now the prime minister.

And from the start of his presidency, he shunned Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat, correctly blamed by his administration for many terrorist attacks on Israel.

The president also vowed to avoid becoming enmeshed in the region’s problems as were Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton and even his own father.

But Bush has discovered in recent weeks that achieving clear goals is harder in the Middle East than establishing them.

As violence has escalated, precipitated by the terrorist attacks of pro-Palestinian groups and exacerbated by the Israeli military campaign in the occupied West Bank, Bush and his top aides have made abrupt reversals of position.

Just days after White House officials said there were no plans to send former Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni back to the region, the president announced he was sending the general back in a new bid to negotiate a cease-fire.

Then, Vice President Dick Cheney visited the region to mobilize Arab support for the war on terror in general and a possible attack on Iraq in particular. But he had to get involved in the Middle East situation after Arab leaders said that ending the violence there was in effect a pre-condition.

He first refused to meet with Arafat, then indicated he would return to the region if the Palestinian leader acted to end the violence. Ultimately, he dismissed Arafat’s steps as insufficient and dropped the whole idea.

As the situation deteriorated, the United States joined in a U.N. resolution calling on Israel to withdraw troops from Palestinian areas. Hours after it was passed, Bush again showed where his sympathies were.

“I fully understand Israel’s need to defend itself,” he told reporters at his ranch in Crawford. “I respect that.”

But five days later, Bush was in the White House Rose Garden calling on Israel to halt its campaign against Palestinian terrorism and urging both sides to cease and desist.

“Enough is enough,” he said.

He sent Secretary of State Colin Powell to end the violence and resume peace talks. Powell recognized he would have to meet with Arafat and saw the Palestinian leader twice in four days.

But the secretary’s mission ended inconclusively. Sharon refused to end the Israeli campaign against the Palestinians, and Arafat said it would have to end before he would agree to a cease-fire.

And Bush said both Arabs and Israelis have a responsibility “to stop funding or inciting terror” in the Middle East.

Perhaps a more engaged and evenhanded U.S. approach from the start of the Bush administration might have been helpful. Perhaps not. Arafat may be a terrorist to many, but he also is, as some top Israelis have pointed out, the Palestinians’ chosen leader.

In any case, the firm sense of leadership evident at the onset of the war against terrorism has been lacking in the Bush approach to the Middle East.

Where very little is black and white.

Carl P. Leubsdorf is Washington bureau chief of the Dallas Morning News.