Where We Stand: The situation in Iraq, and how to go forward.

What the Bush administration most needs in its Iraqi policy is not greater U.N. involvement, or more soldiers, or even an infusion of $87 billion -- but steady nerves. For it is in danger of being panicked into foolish new initiatives by the exaggerated claims and false arguments of a highly unusual coalition of enemies, unreliable allies, ideological opponents of the traditional state system of international relations, appeasement-minded bureaucrats, domestic political rivals, and the growing constituency of anti-American Americans and anti- Western Westerners. And thus far it is not responding to these challenges with firmness, persuasiveness, or indeed any very clear perception of what exactly is at stake. One crucial exception to that criticism must be made: In his September 7 television address, President Bush himself very clearly argued that Iraq is now the central front in the war against terrorism; his administration should heed his words.

The terrorists have made Iraq the main battleground by sneaking into the country, linking up with well-financed Baathist remnants, and embarking on a classic guerrilla-cum-terrorist campaign against Coalition forces and Iraqi patriots cooperating with them. For Islamist and Arab-nationalist terrorists, Iraq is the Spanish Civil War: their opportunity to confront and defeat the main enemy whom their own governments shrink from fighting. They believe, though perhaps with fading certainty, that the U.S. is vulnerable to guerrilla attacks because the American people cannot accept even a moderate number of casualties in foreign wars. That belief happens to be false. As Lawrence Kaplan establishes with a wealth of survey evidence in a recent New Republic article, it is not the people but the elites who shrink from casualties. What ordinary Americans rightly oppose is a war conducted without any clear aim or prospect of victory. And as yet opinion polls show an overwhelming majority of Americans believe the war in Iraq to be just, necessary, and winnable. But the terrorists' faith in America's lack of resolve helps to sustain their campaign.

It was imperative, therefore, that the president firmly declare that whatever the terrorists throw at us, the U.S. will stay in Iraq until the Iraqi people can operate and defend their own democratic government -- which he did, with admirable clarity, on September 7. On less clear- cut issues, however, the administration's case is not being advanced effectively. Let me briskly summarize the arguments of the anti- Coalition coalition.

One: The war is being lost . According to a British Foreign Office document, self-evidently written to be leaked and thus to increase the pressure for U.N. involvement, the Coalition faces "strategic defeat" in Iraq. In the less flamboyant rhetoric of a Washington Post report, Iraq is "engulfed in guerrilla violence." In fact, virtually every reporter who actually travels outside Baghdad points out that most of Iraq is relatively peaceful, serious violence is largely confined to the "Sunni Triangle" between Baghdad and Tikrit, the long-predicted Shiite violence against Coalition forces seems not to have materialized, and the number of Coalition casualties is militarily insignificant. That last sentence will strike many readers, especially those with family members serving in Iraq, as harsh and callous. I appreciate that, and acknowledge that every death is a tragedy for some family somewhere. But the blunt truth is that the U.S. can withstand the death of one soldier a day -- or fewer than 4,000 soldiers a decade -- indefinitely, provided that the American people believe that the deaths are in a decent and winnable cause. And the sooner that fact is generally appreciated, the quicker the terrorists will lose the battle in Iraq and lose heart across the world. If, on the other hand, the U.S. loses heart and scuttles, then Iraq will become the headquarters and training ground for terrorist violence committed not in Iraq against soldiers but in American and West European cities against civilians. Take your choice.

Two: We need more troops on the ground -- and that means troops from currently reluctant allies . Other things being equal, it would naturally be pleasant to have more troops in Iraq. But as several anti- terrorism experts have pointed out, increasing ...