How does the United States wisely extract itself from Iraq without "cutting and running"? And is it possible to democratize a people so used to dictators and demagogues?

In October 1993 the United States left a lingering legacy in Mogadishu, Somalia, when they sent elite American soldiers into the heart of the city to abduct top lieutenants of the warlord Mohamed Farrah Aidid. America lost 18 servicemen, and more than 500 Somalis died. That event has had a cautionary influence on American foreign policy. Indeed, recent uprisings in Iraq appear to be a throwback to what happened in Somalia: Fiercely resist the infidel intruders and they will leave the country.

President Bush has repeatedly said the U.S.-led coalition will not "cut and run" but will finish the job. Perhaps that's the only thing that can be done. Can a people so acculturated to demagoguery be democratized? Possibly. But at what price? There aren't that many options available.

The capture of Saddam Hussein has helped remove the fear of the return of his despotic rule. A contained Saddam helps the majority of Iraqis entertain a form of democracy. They want freedom like all peoples; and democracy, despite all its warts and bumps, allows for such freedom.

Time is of the essence, as are the successes of a new Iraqi democratic form of government. Early democratic successes would mean faster acceptance. But the nagging factors of time and American casualties play a dominant role on the American psyche. Are Americans willing to sacrifice their youth for the possible peaceful returns from an Iraqi democratic government? And will Europe get involved in the Iraqi process?

Ongoing troubles can be expected in Iraq and from its neighbors. The Bible says that Middle Eastern troubles will continue and only God will bring lasting peace to the Middle East.—WNP