Additional military forces poured into the Baghdad region have failed to change anything.

This is a complete lie. Civilian casualties in Baghdad have dropped drastically. In recent weeks, progress has been made in the surrounding belt as well. The NYT never mentions Anbar, or progress in Diyala.

There was much made in the media in the past couple of days about a major bombing in Iraq recently. Check out where Armila and Zargosh are in Iraq. Note the locations relative to Baghdad, or even Diyala. Or do you even know what I'm talking about?

Maybe nobody has noticed that the sectarian violence, the "civil war," has almost stopped? That almost all the violence now is attacks by insurgents on the U.S. or attacks by al Qaeda on both Shiites and Sunnis? Did you notice that the second bombing of that mosque (the first one set off the first wave of sectarian violence) set off almost no sectarian violence this time? Did anyone hear Zawahiri's latest tape?

When Congress returns this week, extricating American troops from the war should be at the top of its agenda.

That conversation must be candid and focused. Americans must be clear that Iraq, and the region around it, could be even bloodier and more chaotic after Americans leave. There could be reprisals against those who worked with American forces, further ethnic cleansing, even genocide. Potentially destabilizing refugee flows could hit Jordan and Syria. Iran and Turkey could be tempted to make power grabs. Perhaps most important, the invasion has created a new stronghold from which terrorist activity could proliferate.

The administration, the Democratic-controlled Congress, the United Nations and America’s allies must try to mitigate those outcomes — and they may fail. But Americans must be equally honest about the fact that keeping troops in Iraq will only make things worse. The nation needs a serious discussion, now, about how to accomplish a withdrawal and meet some of the big challenges that will arise.

...The United States military cannot solve the problem. Congress and the White House must lead an international attempt at a negotiated outcome. To start, Washington must turn to the United Nations, which Mr. Bush spurned and ridiculed as a preface to war.

...Just as Iran should come under international pressure to allow Shiites in southern Iraq to develop their own independent future, Washington must help persuade Sunni powers like Syria not to intervene on behalf of Sunni Iraqis. Turkey must be kept from sending troops into Kurdish territories.

For this effort to have any remote chance, Mr. Bush must drop his resistance to talking with both Iran and Syria. Britain, France, Russia, China and other nations with influence have a responsibility to help. Civil war in Iraq is a threat to everyone, especially if it spills across Iraq’s borders.

Ah. The United Nations, and negotiations with Iran and Syria. Of course!

And then people wonder why I don't want liberals in charge of our national security. This approaches the delusional--a deliberate avoidance of reality that staggers the imagination.

Someone actually living ON this planet might notice that Iran and Syria not only have everything to gain from chaos in Iraq, but that they seem to be noticably immune to the process of negotiations. Maybe nobody has been following the great success of the U.N. in getting Iran to stop developing nuclear weapons, or how well they've kept Hezbollah out of Lebanon.

"Britain, France, Russia, China and other nations with influence have a responsibility to help." Please inform me EXACTLY what France and China would do to "help" under these circumstances. France was perfectly happy making cash of Saddam, and would be perfectly happy making cash off of a regime ruled by Iran. China is on Iran's side NOW, and is a major trading partner.

The bottom line: the Pentagon needs enough force to stage effective raids and airstrikes against terrorist forces in Iraq, but not enough to resume large-scale combat.

Yes, the famous "over the horizon" war proposed by so many ignorant people. The ONLY way to fight an effective "over the horizon" war is the way Clinton did it, by massive and indiscriminate bombing runs from the air. An "over the horizon" solution means that instead of integrating our troops into a village to protect and rebuild it, you bomb it flat. Get troops in there to go door to door? Anybody who thinks they can fly enough troops to make a difference in helicopters from Kuwait, Qatar, or an aircraft carrier has no frigging clue what they're talking about. In the absence of a heavy airstrip, armored vehicles and supplies need to be brought in over land. That takes a lot of time from the borders of Iraq, and in the deathtrap situation that the Democrats propose, it will take going over roads that have been unwatched for weeks at a time.

The New York Times is, to put it bluntly, stupid. I can't believe they are ignorant, given their resources. I see the same old boilerplate talking points being ticked off, and they have the same plausibility they always did: none.

Our enemies in Iraq have only one real chance now to pull a complete victory out--the Democratic Party of the United States. You can get as indignant as you want about that, but it's true.

Get this straight: It is not about being on Bush's side, although that seems to be as far as a lot of people here can apparently take it. What I am is intensely opposed to the Democrats' side.

Another response to the editorial here.