Editorial: IRAQ: A Bearable Burden.

The Bush administration's Iraq policy faces substantial obstacles: simmering unrest, factional disputes, impatience, distrust. And that's just in Washington, D.C. In the aftermath of the United Nations bombing in Baghdad, Bush faces increasing criticism. Pundits on the left and the right say that we need to have more troops and civilian personnel in Iraq. Democrats want those boots on the ground to be filled by non- Americans. John Kerry and Robert Byrd say that it's mere "pride" that has kept Bush from asking other countries to help us in Iraq. There are various proposals to give the U.N. more authority. The occupation needs, in the buzzword of the day, to be "internationalized."

Some of these suggestions are reasonable, and should be heeded. Gen. John Abizaid, the head of the U.S. Central Command, says he does not need more troops -- but it seems prudent, all the same, to provide him with more. Take them from Bosnia, if necessary. (It also seems prudent to make longer-term plans to expand our armed forces, notwithstanding Secretary Rumsfeld's claim that various reforms can free up existing troops.) Gen. Abizaid says that what he really needs is better intelligence. If more resources can be used to beef up intelligence capabilities, they too ought to be provided. Additional funds to improve infrastructure would also be money well spent. Success in Iraq is more important than keeping the deficit down, let alone providing a prescription-drug benefit. We think the public would not balk at the expense if the president made the case for it.

The demand for internationalization, on the other hand, is based on the idea that Iraqi reconstruction is proving too great a burden for America. Our men in Iraq are risking their lives every day. But the occupation has endangered neither our ...