The US Needs To "Internationalize" Iraq By Involving UN And Arab States Directly

The Sunday papers brought us plenty of fuel for thought on Iraq. David Brooks in The New York Times painted an upbeat picture of the insurrection claiming Iraqi troops are better prepared to fight and arguing US ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad helped wisely craft a moderate government.

That last point is an important one. An Islamic fundamentalist government could have been a horror for America and the world. 

Frank Rich cast perhaps a more realistic pallor on the country. Mission accomplished is not mission accomplished. On the whole, things are getting worse. In May, 1,500 Iraqi civilians died, 500 more than May a year ago. American troop deaths were 68, the number of insurgents rose and oil production was still below the level before the war began.

In Washington, ideologue Karl Rove did nothing to promote intelligent debate. He called anyone considering a troop withdrawl from Iraq a coward.

Inside the Democratic party, the nation's debate seems to be unfolding. The party is split on a solution, just as is the country. If an easy answer could be found, the Democrats would have found it.

The truth is there is no easy answer. The only step toward an answer is for the country to "internationalize" Iraq, take the intractable conflict to the world community, to the United Nations and specifically to Iraq's Arab neighbors. Only with the help of Arab nations will the world have the legitimacy to find the calming balm for Iraq.