As much as GW is the cause and creator of this fiasco, how do we apportion demerits to the 53 million Americans who voted for this belligerant frat boy?!

I would vote for any respectable candidate who ran

on the following in detail:

"If elected, I will admit and anounce that we invaded Iraq

to replace our lost Saudi bases and control the oil, and no

other reason. Certainly no idealistic reason whatever. I

will further admit that we have lost, and will continue losing,

the war to control the oil and enjoy the bases."

"If elected, I will set a 6-month deadline. At the end

of that deadline, I will begin the speedy withdrawal soonest

of all American Military Personell in Iraq. We will abandon,

just abandon, the bases. We will give up any effort to

control the oil. We will not expect a single one of the

Bremer Decrees to stand or be followed the least bit. If our

soldiers are allowed to leave without being bombed or shot at,

they will leave without shooting. If they are harassed while

retreating, they will retreat behind a moving wall of Rolling

Thunder and Flaming Napalm. Our retreating soldiers will

not be targets of opportunity for jihadista lunatics or

grudge-bent Baathists."

"That 6-months before the deadline can be used by any

Iraqi leadership elites who wish to use it to: work with

the United Nations, Muslim States, whomever, to set up

a non-Colonial Neutral Trusted Stabilization Force to allow

Iraqi society to reconstruct itself into some new stable

configuration of Iraq's own choosing. Iraq will have 6 months

to use or squander as Iraq pleases. After that, we're outta

there. After that, we commence Operation Total Retreat.

And let God show mercy on anyone who tries to block that

retreat, because we will show none."

If a Democrat, or a Socialist, or any other respectable

politician, ran on that type of Statement of Purpose and Plans,

I would work for that candidate.

I was waiting for a definition of civil war that could be evaluated on an empirical basis rather that pundit spin. It is especially helpful that this definition was crafted in 2000, well beyond the reach of pundits who would seek to cast it as an artificial construct designed for political gain.

Alas, there seems little chance that any major media outlet will evaluate the Iraq Civil War through a lens that would directly contradict the Administration's bleating insistence that Iraq is not Not NOT! in a Civil War. On the upside, I have been somewhat impressed that his higness can convincingly pronounce the word "sectarian."

I cannot offer any solutions based on military experience or otherwise, but here's what seems obvious:

1. If you wish to secure the country, then you must treat it like it was supposed to be treated in the first place, that these people have no method of keeping the peace or protecting themselves. Therefore, we shouldn't withdraw troops, but rather ADD them! A minimum of probably 500,000 troops would be needed to adequately secure this country and provide enough security for awhile. But this is the answer, not the question. The questions are obvious...cost vs. return, American lives, American willingness, etc.

2. Admit utter and total fault and plead with the U.N. to help us at this point and send whatever they can, turn over total control to U.N. peacekeeping forces and bump those up to somewhere in the neighborhood of 500,000 plus. This would clearly involve GW and clan doing something they cannot fathom doing, but it would probably be the right thing. If it came to this, then GW and clan should be excoriated by the public for such a foolish and utterly botched disaster, wrong in so many ways and executed wrongly in so many ways that one hardly knows where to start.

3. Pull out completely. This is the worst answer, but probably the one that will be demanded by the American people. We never learn, do we? We'd much rather sacrifice our children's future at the altar of current political polarizations manufactured by the parties we vote for. Run the numbers people; is it really worth it? Does GW deserve anything less than a metaphorical public beheading? He'll be long out of office before the public realizes how much he screwed them though...very sad

3. Pull out completely and let it all go to hell.

This is an excellent article ; I only wish our main stream papers, in the US and in Europe would be willing to reprint it. The defintion of civil war as it is used here does mark Irak as "in civil war".

I have followed the 15 years of the Lebanese Civil war closley as a correspondent having to report on it on a daily base. I would suggest there is another defintion of civil war, perhaps especially fitting for the ME. It is: "when the government looses power over its subjects and these start fighting amongst themselves, initially and mainly on a sectarian basis."

According to these criteria Irak is close to the brink but perhaps not quite gone into that kind of civil war.What is cristal clear is in any case that it is such a situation which is aimed at by the insurgency or guerrilla forces, or at least by a considerable -preponderant? - part of them. They do try their worst to instigate the communities (sunni-shii; Kurd-Turkmen-Sunni- Shii,) against each other. They have nearly succeded but there was a retraction from the brink after the communal killings let loose by Samarra. It happened clearly because all Irakis know what a civil war amongst the Iraki communities would mean. It would be much worse than anyhing we have now. The big question is: can the descent into community violence be stopped in the last moment, or are we over the brink?

The big trouble is: the US government does not seem to realise what is the hour of the day. They seem inclined to believe their own propaganda. "I said it, consequently it must be true".They will not be able to act in a fashion relevant to stop civil war (whatever defintion you chose) as long as they refuse to recognise what is really happening in Irak.

Arnold Hottinger long time (30 years) Middle East correspondent of Neue Zurcher Zeitung, Switzerland