[T]o succeed we needed to establish a secure order in Iraq and prevent the murderous Sunni/Baathist attacks on Shiites. The Bush team, arriving in Iraq with too few troops and no plans, failed to do either. And therefore the natural tribalism of Iraqis surfaced and the minimal trust between citizens needed to forge a real democracy never emerged. Now we have a tit-for-tat civil war.

No kidding? That's why you get the big bucks Tom. Now what is your new fantasy about how all this can work out?

The “tolerable” outcome that might be self-sustaining and stable would require reshaping Iraq as a loose federation of predominantly Kurdish, Shiite and Sunni zones. To make even that work, though, would probably require cutting a new deal with Iran and its Iraqi Shiite clients, and Syria and its Sunni Baathist allies, and the Kurds. Iraq would retain a central government in Baghdad, but power and oil income would be more radically decentralized among the different sects. Democracy would be subordinated to stability.

Yes that is all very possible Tom. Really it is. The Shiites, who have refused to do any of this, the Iranians, who could care less about our predicament, are going to lend the U.S. a helping hand. You idiot.

But how do we do it Tom?

To produce even this, though, the U.S. will probably need to set a date and threaten to leave. Otherwise, the parties won’t negotiate seriously.

Emboldening the terrorists!!! And now Tom's coup de grace:

A U.S. withdrawal under such conditions would be messy and shameful. But when people are that intent on killing each other there’s not much we can do. As bad as we’ve performed in Iraq, what Iraqis have done to each other, and the little that other Muslims have done to stop them, is an even bigger travesty.

The man is a disgrace to be writing this in November 2006. He and the rest of the punditocracy have a lot to answer for.