Published:  November 11, 2006

With the Democratic party having won enough votes to take control of the U.S. Congress, the conversation has begun to center around a phased withdrawal of troops from Iraq. Several reasons are cited for this decision, chief among them the contention that the Iraq war is "not going well," and the continued presence of U.S. and coalition troops serves no purpose.

The inescapable fact remains, however, that we destroyed the nation of Iraq--and our responsibility remains to reassemble it in some reasonable fashion, timetables aside. This is a moral imperative we simply cannot ignore.

Accordingly, far from a troop withdrawal, I advocate a massive troop deployment to Iraq, sufficient to dramatically suppress the insurgent attacks. During this presumed period of relative peace, the Iraqi army, police force, and government can develop unhindered, creating the pre-condition for a stable Iraq. As this process proceeds, resulting in greater stability in that nation or a greater potential for stability, our moral obligation will have been better fulfilled, and we can withdraw our forces in good conscience.

I also note the recent suggestion that the best course of action may be to separate Iraq into what has historically been its three constituent parts.

Ultimately, let us hope to have the foresight to elect future Presidents of great intellect, knowledge, and wisdom, sufficient to prevent such catastrophes. Indeed, as argued here, we should amend the United States constitution to compel a minimum baseline of competent knowledge in those seeking the office of President of the United States, the most comprehensively important of all offices of governance.

August 2017 Addendum:  in office for about a year, the "presidency" of Donald J. Trump would, thus far, appear to further substantiate the above suggestion.