Exit Stage Left--The Sequel
The Hidden Columnists--Nicholas Kristof Edition (14 Nov)

Mr. Kristof follows his teaser column from the weekend with Iraq in the Rear-View Mirror (full access to Times Select subscribers). First, a little historical perspective:

As we puzzle over how to end our nightmare in Iraq, the central question is the one raised by The Times on Aug. 7: "How much longer are valuable lives to be sacrificed in the vain endeavor to impose upon the Arab population an elaborate and expensive administration which they never asked for?"

Not this Times, though. It was The Times of London on Aug. 7, 1920, as a ferocious insurgency threatened the British occupation of Iraq.

The British had also started out thinking that they were liberators, only to find that they had catastrophically underestimated Iraqi nationalism. They ended up being sucked into what Lawrence of Arabia described as "a trap from which it will be hard to escape with dignity and honor." Yet, ultimately, the British did manage to extricate themselves, providing lessons for us.

After going through the two options for U.S. Iraq policy as he saw it in the last column--cut our losses or stay the course--Kristof weighs in with his preference:

My vote is to set target dates for withdrawing our troops. I suggest that we announce that we intend to pull out at least half our troops by the end of 2006 - and the very last soldier by the end of 2007. We would also pledge that we will not keep any military bases in Iraq.

Democrats are beginning to rally behind this strategy, mostly, however, on more hurried timetables than mine. Senator Russell Feingold was among the first to call for a timetable, and Senators John Kerry and Edward Kennedy have since signed on to this approach, as has former Senator Tom Daschle.

Will this work? I'm not sure. We could invest tens of billions of dollars more in Iraq, and hundreds more lives, and still see the country fall apart. Moreover, I have to acknowledge that the big disadvantage of target dates is that they can encourage insurgents to think, "We just need to hang on for one more year, and then Iraq will be ours for the taking."

That's a legitimate concern, but a tentative timetable does avoid the worse pitfalls of the other two approaches. And target dates and a renunciation of bases at least show some sensitivity to the resentment of our presence, while giving the Iraqi political system and Army more time to coalesce.

After noting some opinions from Iraqi journalists he's visited with recently, he ends with:

The insurgents have traction only because many ordinary Iraqis (particularly Sunnis) share this hostility to American troops. If we can make it clear that we're headed for the exits, that'll make it harder for the insurgents to portray themselves as nationalist heroes.

A target date would also light a fire under all Iraqis to work out a modus vivendi. Time and again, deadlines have proved the only way to get Iraqi politicians to do anything.

The British finally calmed the insurgency of 1920 by installing King Feisal, who created enough trouble that he didn't come across as a puppet. Afterward, the British managed to muddle through their mess, and Iraq found greater stability than the pessimists had expected.

Likewise, our exit strategy needs to focus on healing nationalist resentments, not inflaming them by settling our troops in for a long haul.

President Bush said last month that "we're making good, steady progress" in Iraq. That sounds delusional because we may be in the early stages of civil war.

All the Iraq options are bad. But this is the least bad.