As civil war batters Iraq, what's the U.S. to do?

Thursday marked the deadliest day of sectarian violence since the start of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq 44 months ago. The worsening bloodbath illustrates that the insurgency remains strong, vicious and relentless in its destructive mission. It also signals that the U.S. military likely will remain entrenched for some time in its ill-conceived mission.
Killings and chaos
In Sadr City on Thursday, minority Sunnis unleashed bombs and mortars that killed 215 people and wounded 257, the highest one-day toll in the history of the war. The killings, mostly of majority Shiites, brought reprisal attacks Friday and pulled Iraq into the throes of full-scale civil war. The assaults led the government to impose a sweeping curfew, to shut down the international airport and to close the country's main outlet to the shipping lanes in the Persian Gulf.
The carnage underscores the ongoing ineffectiveness of the U.S.-trained Iraqi army and police to quell determined sectarian militants. It threatens to slow down yet again the speed at which U.S. forces will hand over peacekeeping responsibilities to Iraqis.
It also comes at a time when President Bush is scheduled to meet with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Malik in Jordan next week. Supporters of radical anti-American Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr warned they would suspend their membership in parliament and the Cabinet if al-Maliki carries through with his meeting with the American president.
We hope the meeting will go on and that creative strategies for healing the nation can be crafted. The sad reality, however, is that the divisions run so deep that no amount of talking now is likely to end the intensified offensive, and the nation will remain in a state of anarchy.
The implications for the United States are clear. Despite the misguided decision to invade Iraq in March 2003, America does not plan to abandon the troubled nation now, a position many Americans embrace.
"The United States is committed to helping the Iraqis," a White House spokesman reinforced Thursday in the immediate aftermath of the record violence.
Military draft?
Enter U.S. Rep. Charles Rangel, incoming chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, who has proposed reinstitution of a military draft. Initial buzz about the idea has been resoundingly negative and dismissive. The draft is unnecessary and would create undue controversy, many argue.
But given that U.S. troops have been unable to rein in violence or to train Iraqi military and police to adequately do the job over the past three years, we are left with options that include accepting defeat to radical Islamists or ramping up our troop strength. The first option is untenable; the second cannot mean thrusting war-weary National Guard and reserve troops back into harm's way for third, fourth and fifth tours of duty.
Short of a massive and successful drive to pump up enlistments, a military draft that is applied fairly at least merits preliminary investigation and debate. A draft could serve to bring the realities and sacrifices of war closer to home. If more sons and daughters were potential targets of enemy fire, the national will to achieve a victory -- by diplomacy, force or other means -- may take on renewed urgency, and this sad chapter in 21st century American foreign policy at last could be relegated to the pages of history.