That's a very good question, of course, BT. I guess the roughest statement of the principle I would work from (as opposed to the definite answer I would give) is that the chances for peace would be enhanced and the loss of life over time and its oppression would be lessened by the course of action we choose. I know that's vague, but starting out I can't be any more precise. I toy with the idea of a loose federation or outright tripartite separation on treaty terms but he ramifications of that are basically an unknown to me. But there's got to be a better way. The present arrangement is simply not sustainable. Good arguments can be made that Bush's is a failing or already failed policy. And if through some miracle a "victory" anywhere near the sort he envisions could be achieved, it would be Pyrrhic indeed, as it would cost us and that region and the world much more than it yields. Especially in light of the recent NIE evaluation that the political situation in Iraq -- the crucial indicator and engine for change -- will worsen over the course of the next year, new ideas, not old canards, have to be entertained. Unfortunately, Bush seems to offer only the latter, and it's not scheduled to get any more astute, I would venture, in Karl Rove's absence. Senator Warner's call for a reduction in troop levels yesterday, insignificant as an absolute matter of numbers, does, however, signal a good start to rethinking the problem all the way across the political spectrum ... and to send a message to Iraq and its region that we are doing so.
