Today's W. Post piece on the rise of Shia militias ends on a note that buttresses the arguments of those that want US troops to stay in Iraq:

Ultimately, [International Crisis Group analyst Joost] Hiltermann said, the Mahdi Army, as well as the Supreme Council and both groups' Sunni rivals, need only bide their time, until growing opposition to the war among the American public brings U.S. troops home. 'Then the real struggle begins,' Hiltermann said.

In other words, when we leave, all hell will break loose. (As if we're not witnessing hell in Iraq right now.)

But that assumes if we leave, we don't do anything but leave.

Yet there are ideas on the table regarding how we can begin a diplomatic process that would resolve sectarian disputes, and allow us to leave behind a stable situation.

Ivo Daalder summed up the problem, and sketched out a plausible solution, on TPMCafe back in May:

...before we conclude that there is no hope -- and accept that Iraq's future is a Hobbesian state of nature -- it is worth trying one last time to reach a political settlement.

Normal politics won't do. Even if Iraq gets a unity government .. the most important issues dividing Iraqis would remain unresolved.

These include such fundamental issues as how power is to be shared between the central government and the regional governments, who controls current and future oil revenues, how many security forces are allowed to exist and under whose control, how power is to be shared between the presidency, the government, and the national parliament, and what role religion will play in the judicial system.

All of these issues remain unresolved, and until an agreement has been reached on every one of them that is acceptable to all the major parties, the roots of conflict remain.

To find out whether such an agreement can be arrived at through the force of argument rather than the force of violence, we need an extraordinary political process -- one that is both time-limited and conveys a clear signal that our involvement in Iraq will end without a viable and lasting compromise among all the parties.

This should involve a political conference, held under international auspices, in which all the major Iraqi leaders would convene in an effort to strike a final political deal on the political make-up of the Iraqi state -- including on the key issues mentioned above...

...The effort should be overseen by an international mediator ... It should be given a narrow time window -- say, 14 days -- to succeed. And it should be clear to all the parties that a failure to reach an agreement would mean the end of international involvement -- including of American and other foreign troops -- in Iraq.

Equally important, it should be clear that in the event agreement is reached, the extent and nature of any international involvement would be decided by the parties themselves as part of any such agreement.

Daalder was not the first, or last, the push the idea of a real international conference -- as opposed to a "unity" government created under pressure from a foreign occupier -- to address the root causes of sectarian strife.

Both the Feingold-Kerry and the Levin-Reed Democratic plans call for such a summit.

Earlier this month, war supporter Tom Friedman jumped on the bandwagon, properly noting that: "For such a conference to come about, though, the U.S. would probably need to declare its intention to leave." Bye-bye permanent bases.

That means having American neocons loosen their grip over the Iraqi government, so it won't happen while Dubya is around.

Further, as more attention falls on the increasing power of Mahdi Army leader Moqtada Al-Sadr, right-wingers will follow Sen. John McCain's lead. On Sunday's Meet The Press, McCain singled out Sadr as the main problem who needs to be taken out by force.

That is silliness.

Sadr has grassroots support and 32 followers in the Iraqi parliament. He is not the only unsavory character fostering violence in the country.

To outright attack him now is to take sides in a civil war.

It will not solve a root problem, it will create more.

Those Democrats who have been supportive of an international summit as the key to a responsible withdrawal need to challenge McCain's reckless logic.

If Dem let McCain frame the argument, they will look like weaklings who just don't have the stomach to take out a bad guy.

If Dems are framing the argument, people will understand that McCain is proposing an irresponsible escalation of the civil war with the help of our troops, while a responsible withdrawal requires a negotiated agreement between the warring parties.