I think the Sunnis will slowly come to realize that the game’s up at this point, and they either have to make entreaties to the dominant Shias or face complete ostracism in their own homeland. They will also reluctantly acknowledge that a division will be far worse for them in the long run.

Sooner or later we had to see if the Iraqi’s could pedal the bike on their own…6 months ago this would have been a disaster, but in its current state it will prove the trest which helps solidify the government.

The Iraqi government is strong enough to pull it off now. Another factor that has been plaguing the training of the Iraqis…is that they disappear when they get paid. So long as tension is high, the Iraqi government will increase their effort and involvement of the training of the soldiers and police-they’ll place a higher priority on the attendance of their soldiers/police.

Conflict was unavoidable, but by staying it for so long, we have provided a great opportunity for the Iraqi people. Let’s see what they do with the ball.

British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said Thursday that he suspects Al-Qaida in Iraq, led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, was responsible for the mosque attack.

“It has the hallmarks of their nihilism,” Straw told a news conference in London. He called on leaders of Iraq’s religious communities to defuse tensions caused by the attack.

My stance is this: we ought to conduct a plebiscite in Iraq to ask if we should stay or go. If they want us to go: we should get outta there. If they want us to stay: we ought to remain with an exit strategy in place. I think this approach confers legitimacy to our presence there as well as being an example of democracy at work. I think it is far superior than our current policy.

Since you seem unduly fond of the New York Times, let me appeal to your favorite source:

Most Iraqi leaders attributed the attack to terrorists bent on exploiting sectarian rifts, but some also blamed the United States for failing to prevent it.

So, we have foreign terrorists, as even the great Times admits, most likely using the bombing to provoke talk of a civil war, in the hopes that we will pack up and retreat, and you advise – what, exactly? Is your stance that we should, in fact, give in and leave?

Nothing that has happened has changed my estimation of the necessity of the war – sure, I would prefer that it had been better planned, and less bloody in the aftermath – who wouldn’t? But I can’t see how continued strife makes the arguments for invading moot – and I far prefer to focus on the future.

We are training Iraqi forces – we are trying to diminish sectarian violence. We are working with the Iraqis to form a legitimate government that will hold the country together. We may fail or we may succeed – and this bombing is a setback…but it’s a fact, now, and we must work with both sides to quell the violence and move forward…

2) It is obvious that the bombing occurred to promote partisan strife. However, one of the main arguments against invading Iraq was that the result would be partisan strife. Bush ignored this warning and invaded anyway. Why shouldn’t he be accountable for the results of his actions? And why aren’t the results of the war (in this case, sectarian strife) a legitimate argument against the war?

3) Since the bombing took place yesterday, I don’t see how the “overwhelming consensus” is that foreigners were involved. On its face, it appears to be a strike against the Shiites by Iraqi Sunnis – there are plenty of disaffected local Sunnis around, so I question why it would have a foreign origin.

4) Even if it was the work of foreigners, why is this relevant? The presence of foreigners causing trouble in Iraq is a direct result of the invasion – why shouldn’t this be part of the equation?

5) The source of the comparison of pre- and post-invasion Iraq was a piece in the Times recently which was essentially a spreadsheet which compared various quantifiable metrics (e.g., hours of electricity per day, barrels of oil pumped, etc.).

6) Recognizing that you are a supporter of the war, I am eager to hear why – despite all of the evidence – you continue to believe that the invasion was a worthy cause. I think that a clear-eyed evaluation of how things are will cause you to question your beliefs. Hey, maybe you’ll even vote HRC in 2008. However, please don’t read this as a beat-up-Bush screed: I think that the evident problems in Iraq suggest that to be intellectually honest, anyone who supports the war ought to show why the (meager) results justify the (enormous) cost in lives, treasure, and alliances.

I don’t believe anyone around here has ever stated that our mission in Iraq would be easy. You throw out the assertion that by every metric, Iraq is worse off than before the invasion, but I’ve seen the Brookings Institute studies, and that simply isn’t true. Some things are worse, some are better – but one thing is undeniable: the measure of freedom in Iraq is way, way up, and the Iraqis themselves are optimistic about the future.

I realize you’re an opponent of the war – I’m a supporter. No surprises, there – but you’re using this terrible act of terrorism as a stick to beat Bush about the head with. Not a very productive approach, in my view…

Faced with this state of affairs, the Bush administration’s plan is, essentially, to continue the status quo. Do you feel that this is the wisest course of action?