Max Boot and Geoffrey Wheatcroft on American Foreign Policy - New York Times

Max Boot and Geoffrey Wheatcroft vie with each other in the New York Times to see who can describe the situation in Iraq in bleaker terms. Wheatcroft's assessment is that we have only two options:

For McCain to advocate another 20,000 troops is a cop-out. He should be saying, "America can win in Iraq, but only if we have the stomach for the fight. We will need to commit an army of at least half a million for five, ten, maybe 20 years, and be prepared for casualties on the scale Europe has known in the past century. In turn that means bringing back the draft (with no exemptions or deferments whatever for anyone with 'other priorities'), and it means raising Federal income tax to World War II levels. Let us therefore brace ourselves to our duties, and for what will indeed be a Long War."
But those who take the Odom line should also be candid and admit what cutting and running implies: the whole of the larger Middle East, from Turkey to the Gulf, Israel to Iran, will be abandoned to its fate. Back to fully-fledged isolationism, America First, and the narrowest interpretation of the national interest.
Although both of those would be intellectually honest, I have to admit that, looking at America, again from afar, neither seems at present what we call practical politics, or a likely campaign platform. But then what else is there?

If Wheatcroft is right, then facing up to the consequences of this country's, and this President's, actions is going to be very difficult indeed.