1974, all over again?

I can think of only one plausible, reasonable answer: The US goes to the UN and the international community on bended knee and says, "we were arrogant, we screwed up, this place is a mess, help us fix it". And then replace US troops with UN peacekeepers just as fast as possible.

This does not address many of the basic problems in Iraq, most notably the Shiite/Sunni/Kurd issue. But it does help resolve the (accurate) perception that Iraq is currently occupied by an invading power. The UN troops would probably be less objectionable to the Iraqis. Would that difference be enough? Maybe it would have, had we done it a couple of years ago. At this point, probably it would not.

What's actually going to happen, though, is the only other plausible scenario: We withdraw, with our tail between our legs, and the region becomes either a theocratic tyranny (worst) or a balkanized state (less bad, perhaps).

For some questions, there are no good answers. This is one of them. The great shame is, we created these circumstances, and could have avoided doing so if we could have just gotten over our American arrogance long enough to think things through.>

A few dems have presented answers, at least partial ones. Jack Murtha advocates a troop draw-down combined with pulling out to the Kurd's region and Kuwait, which doesn't seem like a bad medium-term goal. Its certainly an excellent threat to get those Iraqis that don't want a full-scale civil war to behave.

I think its going to take a good dose of diplomacy to get the best possible outcome from the current mess. Many Repubs seem to think dimplomacy is for sissies (the much maligned Chuck Hagel is an admirable exception). The Demos may think they can be effective diplomats without a credible threat of force, which is wrong, but I suspect their portrayal as being unwilling to pull the trigger is grossly over-stated for political purposes.

I say give 'em a chance. They may also do something serious about global warming, energy security and the deficit. They are so broadly maligned in most of the country that if they fulfill many of your worst fears you'll easily bring the Repubs back in 2-4 years. Hopefully then the Repubs will be chastened enough to avoid some of their more egregious transgressions. You clearly can't let them think they've got a monopoly on power and expect them to not abuse it. If the Demos don't take one wing of congress in this atmosphere the Repubs will feel absolutely invincible, and thus unaccountable.>

Dude, you are getting to be soooooo Cosmic Brunette.>

The UN. Okay, the same haven for kleptos that gave us the oil for food program. And peacekeepers! Would those be the same peacekeepers that allowed Hezbollah to acquire thousands of rockets from the Iranians, and then somehow missed it when said rockets were deployed in the field? Or would it be the peacekeepers who cannot protect Orthodox monks and nuns from Islamic terrorists in Kosovo? Come freaking on, BrentEubanks! You decry American arrogance yet your only idea for a "plausible, reasonable" solution is to hand everything over to the gypsies, tramps and thieves lurking around Turtle Bay. Not gonna fly, neighbor.>

Couple of correx/clarify:

2,600 is the figure for all deaths -- including accidents (common in a battlefield environment), suicides, etc.). Just more than 2,000 have been killed by hostile action.

On the post at my site that I linked to, I mentioned 1,100 as the death toll for the Tet offensive. But that was just a single month. The US death toll was close to 1,600 over the entire offensive.

Neither of these correx affects my general point, of course.>

Yeah Victor, I don't think it makes much sense to define "quagmire" by the body count. When I say Iraq's a quagmire, I mean that we've gotten stuck in a situation that we can't control ... and we can't easily get out of it.>

To put it bluntly, if we consider two soldiers a day a "quagmire," we are paper tigers unworthy of being a great power.

I think you are correct. We have not deserved to be considered a Great Power for some time now. We have made it clear that we want to have the perks of being a Great Power but are unwilling to pay the costs.

What really showed me this was all that "No blood for oil" nonsense. Oil is literally the lifeblood of our economy and our entire way of life. If we aren't willing to expend blood and treasure for it, then we don't deserve to get it. I would have had a lot more respect for this administration (well, OK, it's not difficult to get more than zero) if they had just come out and said, "We need to fight in Iraq to ensure the stability of the oil supply." At least that would have been honest. I mean, for decades the Royal Navy enforced freedom of the seas because free trade was essential to the well-being of Britain and its empire. Well, access to oil is essential to ours. If we're not willing to fight for it -- or undertake a large-scale national effort to find an alternative -- then the days of our civilization, in a form in which we would recognize it, are numbered.>