For a while now, there have been only two possible outcomes in Iraq: the bad and the worse. Which is the latter and how to avoid it? The worst outcome for Iraq would be a full-scale civil war that ends in the country’s partition. There is little question that, once the American forces leave, the country will become a far bloodier and more lawless battleground than it is now.

Once that happens, I see no reason why Moqtada al-Sadr and other Shiite strongmen would seek any kind of compromise with Sunni leaders in a pluralist government. Outright Shia domination of Iraq should never be allowed. Given the recent history of both the Middle East and Islam, secularity is a precious asset. In fact, Saddam’s pragmatic view of religion was perhaps the man’s only virtue. It wasn’t an insignificant attribute, especially given the aggressive expansionist theocracy next door. America (and the world) should make sure that Iraq remains a diverse multicultural federation rather than become three isolated and weak enclaves.

So the bad but not the worst is a state more like India than the former Yugoslavia. But is this even possible? Can this be achieved without a violent, revolutionary period? The stakes are too high to wait and find out. The consequences of an enormous “Shiastan” right in the heart of the Middle East could prove to be disastrous. Saudi Arabia, Israel and Syria would stretch out their own claws soon enough. Regional conflict would be, literally, around the corner.

Although I have always thought of the Iraq war as a mistake, my hunch is that, if American forces left Iraq today, the costs would be far graver than if they stayed. To leave Iraq now would only delay America’s involvement in the Middle East, since it could never stand on the sidelines once a larger conflict erupted. The only way for Bush’s project to succeed is to assume a military engagement that will last a generation.