The White House continues to fumble on Haiti, showing an administration in increasing foreign policy disarray. Lacking any guiding principle, the administration lurches from position to position daily, drying up U.S. credibility and compounding an already messy situation.

The latest blow to American credibility is the retraction of an agreement by the president of Panama, Guillermo Endara, to accept Haitian refugees picked up by U.S. military boats. According to Endara, the White House changed the terms of the agreement after he negotiated it with President Clinton.

"I'm sorry for the misunderstanding with the United States," President Endara said. "But the result of these conversations cannot be imputed to us. What we have here is a total failure to communicate."

This failure to communicate runs all through the Clinton foreign policy team. What appears to be clear one day is murky the next.

Does the United States discourage Haitians from fleeing their country by leaky boats? Or does our offer to pick them up as soon as they are off the Haitian coast represent an encouragement?

What does keeping the military option "on the table" mean? Is an invasion "six months away," as William H. Gray III, President Clinton's special adviser for Haiti, said on Tuesday. Or is it "imminent," like he said on Wednesday? Or is it, like several other aides said later on the same day, "not imminent" at all?

While President Clinton might believe such projected confusion strikes fear into the hearts of America's enemies, we worry that it makes the United States' leader more of a laughingstock and turns innocent Haitians into vulnerable pawns between ruthless thugs and an inept United States.

So what should the president do?

For one, he shouldn't be doing what he is doing now: steaming an additional 1,900 members of the 24th Marine Expeditionary Unit to Haiti for a potential invasion. Military force isn't an option to be taken lightly, and lurching toward it because other efforts were bungled signifies weakness, not strength.

The pace at which these troops are being rushed in doesn't recommend the action either. According to Friday's Washington Post, "Marine Expeditionary Units on ready status are required to be able to pack up and ship out within four days. But in the history of such units, it had never happened before this week." The Marines were able to pack so quickly, reported the Washington Post, thanks "to some shortcuts they were allowed to take."

Instead of taking "shortcuts" and rushing into this action without a coherent plan, we suggest the president pause and return to what had been briefly the glimpse of a workable policy. Instruct the Haitians that, if they take to boats, they will find no refuge in the United States. Then find other hosts that might take them in. There are other sites besides Panama.

We expect that doing this -- and taking away the prize of resettlement in the United States -- the president will see the tide of boats leaving Haiti diminish.

Then we suggest the president return to negotiating with the Haitian leadership.

Whatever the president does, however, American troops shouldn't be put into danger. No convincing case has been made to the American people why this is necessary, or that it will be successful without a long-term commitment. And there is little confidence among the American people in the president's ability to manage a military operation.

The greatest need for the president, overarching the above points, is for his administration and staff to stop seeking a quick political fix to the Haitian problem and draft a coherent long-term policy. If those he has in his administration aren't interested in doing this or cannot do this, he should replace them immediately.

Continual White House foreign policy blunders and continual reversals of policy help no one, especially not the president. It is well time President Clinton got his foreign policy act together.