JUST SAY GO

A friend and I were speaking this week about events in Iraq-what else?-and she posed the questions that haunt many Democrats who came of age in the Vietnam war era: If John Kerry wins in November, how does he extricate the country from the Iraqi war? Even under a Kerry presidency, aren't we looking at months-perhaps even years-of continued American military occupation while the new administration seeks out that elusive "peace with honor"?

Back to that, in a moment, while I collect some random thoughts...

I'm no religious scholar, but it's my understanding that the differences between the Shi'ite and Sunni Muslims began shortly after the Prophet Muhammad died in 632 of the common era, almost 1,400 years ago. It is clear that the division between the Iraqi Shi'ites and Sunnis was fairly significant prior to the American invasion of Iraq a year ago, and-if one recalls both television and newspaper accounts during the past year-the Bush administration counted pretty heavily on those divisions in plotting their occupation plans. Former President Saddam Hussein, we are told, oppressed the Shi'ites and favored the Sunnis in his administration, and the Shi'ites, therefore, would welcome our presence in the country.

And up until this week, it appeared that Iraqi resentment of and opposition to the U.S. occupation was centered in the Sunni neighborhoods.

That, we now know, is no longer completely true, if it was ever true. We find that over here in the states, we know very little about Muslims in general and Iraqis in particular, and we are beginning to choke on that ignorance.

The Shi'ites and the Sunnis have been at odds for the past 1,400 years or so, and if their coming together to fight a perceived common opponent in the dusty Iraqi backstreets invites jokes of "well, after all, Bush did say he'd be a uniter"?with the body bags loading up on American transport planes and graves springing up like spring flowers in Iraqi stadiums, it just doesn't seem quite funny.

Our good friends, the British, and our used-to-be-good-friends, the French, might have given us a bit of advice on the subject of the perils to be avoided in empire-building, had we taken the time to listen. One might even try a taking look at Gibbons' Decline And Fall Of The Roman Empire, somewhere amongst its three volumes one might be expected to find some useful clues.

The Bush administration, however, insists that we are not in Iraq to build American empire, but to bring democracy to the Iraqi people. Democracy, we are told-or at least, Thomas Jefferson told us, and he's supposed to be one of the world's leading authorities thereon-begins with a free press. Our present troubles with the Shi'ites began when we shut down the newspaper of a Shi'ite leader which was publishing things of which the Americans did not approve. We have also been teaching the Iraqis on the intricacies of elections, informing them that they are free to choose for their leaders anyone they want when we turn the country back over to them this summer, so long as the leaders they choose are not on the list of those banned from the Iraqi political process by the American occupying forces.

Thus, we introduce our views of government to the world.

President Kennedy, no stranger to war-making or empire-building himself, once said that the way to spread democracy to other countries was to strengthen it at home, making it so desirable a system that everyone in his right mind would want to adopt it. I have no idea how serious Kennedy was on the subject, but it was an interesting thought. Gone are the days, aren't they?

If the Bush administration does not want to look to the Democrats for examples, there are plenty to be had among former Republican presidents. Theodore Roosevelt-another made famous by both war-making and empire-building-is most known for the motto "speak softly and carry a big stick," an admonition to not boast, or unnecessarily stir up enemies. Contrast that to President Bush's call of "bring it on!", one of the least-thoughtful admonitions of our time. Sure, they cheered it in Crawford. But the were also listening in Kut and Najaf and the backstreets of Baghdad.

"I can call spirits from the vasty deep," says Glendower. "But will they come when you do call for them?" Hotspur replies. This time, unfortunately, they may have complied.

Anyhow, having declared that we are not in Iraq to build empire, we see no useful value in a public discussion of the perils thereof. And since there is not much public discourse of the problems of spreading democracy-of which we insist we are about-that pretty much leaves us to chart our own territory.

There are certain situations, we learn in the wisdom of our eldering age, where there is simply nothing we can do to help, and our very presence makes things worse. The most skilled police domestic crisis intervention officers understand that, and know when it is best simply to leave so that the parties themselves can work out a solution.

Americans-big and bold and brash that we are-operate under the impression that just about any problem we set out to solve can be solved?it's merely a matter of will. Curing cancer or AIDS. Returning to the moon, or venturing beyond, to Mars. We could do them, we tend to believe, if only we could rally the country and put our ingenuity, energy and pocketbooks to the task.

Maybe. But there are some problems which are beyond our ability to solve. Not someone else's ability. Our ability. And the mess we have made in Iraq might be one of them.

Aside from all the other bad things about it, the American occupation of Iraq has made the world more dangerous for Americans, not less dangerous. We cannot correct the chaos we have caused in Iraq, no matter how hard we might want to, and our continued presence is a magnet drawing violence and bloodshed to it.

What could a President Kerry do next January to extricate the United States from Iraq? Sign the order. Withdraw the soldiers. Someone else will have to clean up the mess because, unfortunately, all we have in our power to do right now is to make it messier.