A U.S. withdrawal from Iraq could be declared a victory for al-Qaeda. Would such a victory harm the United States more than to continue its presence there, which according to most security experts - including the 16 intelligence agencies participating in a recent NIE (National Intelligence Estimate ) - has created a bonanza in recruitment for al-Qaeda and provided terrorists with a training ground? If the answer to this question is yes, then the U.S. should reinvade.

   The idea that withdrawing from Iraq will cause the Sunni insurgency, Shiite militias and al-Qaeda to travel by sea and air to fight on American territory is nonsense.

   The continuing American presence in Iraq serves Iran's interests, since it maintains American troops in plain sight and under continuous monitoring of Tehran. This makes U.S. forces conveniently located for Iranian suicide squadrons and cells that are camouflaged in Iraq, for a quick reaction in the event that Iranian nuclear plants are bombed. The departure of U.S. troops would prevent their being held hostage or suffering serious losses after such an attack. Remaining so close to Iran to attack it with an army that is exhausted, besieged and surrounded is not tactically intelligent. The United States must leave Iraq as soon as possible to reposition its troops and recover its capacity to confront Iran and North Korea if it becomes necessary.

   The disadvantages that the Sunni insurgency and the Shiite militias (and the hidden strategies of Iran) would suffer in the event of a U.S. departure from Iraq are not reasons to remain there. The bloodletting of the inevitable civil war will continue with our without the U.S. presence. The United Statesians have lost the secular Sunnis, and the only choice Bush has left is between an Iraq run by al-Qaeda or one run by Iran. What is the United States doing sandwiched between the two?

   Assertions by the hawks and neoconservatives that within a few years, terrorists will mount attacks within U.S. territory are indeed credible. As in Spain and Great Britain, such attacks will be conducted by their own citizens, even if the U.S. stays in Iraq. To have U.S. soldiers, National Guardsmen and Marines stuck there wasting money and generating opposition to foreign occupation is not a very good national security strategy, since resources are needed to examine containers arriving at U.S. ports or to secure chemical plants close to the American cities, not to mention the cost of the collective paranoia over terrorism.

   "To attack before we are attacked" is a warmongering measure and is undiplomatic; "You are either with us or against us" disregards moderates, independents and other valuable international cooperation and support one could receive in terms of intelligence gathering and pursuing terrorists. All of these Bush measures are either unsuitable or damaging to worldwide security, human and civil rights. It has also badly damaged the prestige that the United States enjoyed when it defended freedom, rather than slavery to fear.

   The continuing presence of the United States in Iraq also impedes the saving or partial re-direction of the $2.5 billion spent in Iraq every week, and any reduction in the trillion-dollars U.S. debt to China, Japan and the European Union.

   If we don't want to continue a counterproductive, destructive, disastrous course, the intelligent option is to stop being stubborn and withdraw from Iraq immediately, and save the troops and whatever can be salvaged of U.S. influence in the Middle East. Nothing can be worse that what we have now.