So it has come to this: Baghdad or bust. Either increased American and Iraqi troops can stop the mayhem in the capital, or the insurgency will have triumphed.

That was the unspoken message from President Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki after their Washington meeting Wednesday. With the Israeli-Hezbollah war dominating the media and politics, much of the focus was on how al-Maliki disagreed with his host and demanded an immediate cease-fire in Lebanon. The result is a gap with Bush and even some Democrats, who want to give Israel time to crush the terrorist group.

Yet the differences over Lebanon are, for now, less important than what Bush and al-Maliki implicitly agreed on: Namely, that security in Baghdad is so shredded that, unless it can be repaired, Iraq’s new government is doomed. And so is the American policy of spreading democracy to the Mideast.

Their joint appearance, complete with subdued body language and a stressed look on Bush’s face, had the look of a last chance.

“We talked about security in Baghdad,” Bush said in a news conference. “No question the terrorists and extremists are brutal. These are people that just kill innocent people to achieve an objective, which is to destabilize his government. The prime minister tells me that he and his government are not shaken by these actions. They’re concerned about them, they’re not shaken by them.”

That’s got to be more wish than fact. Only a machine wouldn’t be shaken by the level of carnage. The United Nations reported that about 100 civilians are being killed in Iraq each day, or nearly 6,000 in May and June. Many are tortured before being executed while others are blown to bits in public spaces. The United Nations said the “overwhelming majority” were killed in Baghdad, home to nearly 6 million people.

The increased violence has many people saying a civil war has begun between Sunnis and Shiite Muslims. Whether it has or not is semantics; whatever words are used, no society can function with the daily attacks taking such a toll. One thing is certain: Absent a miraculous turnaround, Bush can forget his goal of reducing the total American force below the 130,000 level before the midterm elections.

The changes sound like a back-to-basics approach, with Bush talking of a plan to “secure individual neighborhoods” in Baghdad, then an expansion to “root out those who instigate violence.” He said it would involve “embedding more U.S. military police with Iraqi police units” and better equipping Iraqis.

The added American troops in the capital, Bush said, “will come from other areas of the country.” It would be nice to think the rest of the country has been tamed, but it hasn’t been. It’s just that Baghdad has become an all-hands emergency.

The increase is expected to involve about 3,500 Americans, adding to the 30,000 or so in the Baghdad region, most based near the airport. There may be as many as 50,000 Iraqi troops in the area, though not all are considered reliable.

Will the increase be enough? Probably not. The insurgency seems so entrenched now that upping American strength by 10 percent in Baghdad is not likely to solve the problem.

Then again, Team Bush has been wrong about Iraq so often that, sooner or later, it has to be right about something. This would be a great time to be right. Or just lucky.