Iraq is an undeniable mess, and "staying the course" will only exacerbate the problem. Chaos in the region will continue as long as the United States maintains its position there.

Critics of withdrawal believe that if we leave Iraq, al-Qaeda will follow us home, as the president so often maintains.

But the experts disagree.

Brian Fishman of the Combating Terrorism Center at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point argued that the opposite is true. In fact, he said, we are much more likely to face another attack on U.S. soil because of our presence in Iraq.

"[The war] against al-Qaeda cannot be won or lost in Iraq," Fishman told his cadets. "What this is — is a fight for hearts and minds around the Middle East."

Other critics of full withdrawal believe that al-Qaeda would be emboldened by our departure and that terrorists would be given a permanent base from which to launch attacks.

This, too, is false.

Former CIA counterterrorism analyst Bruce Riedel admitted that al-Qaeda will take credit for a U.S. withdrawal, but "al-Qaeda's own propaganda indicates that it fears the Shiites' wrath after the United States' departure."

Our military's current presence in Iraq not only jeopardizes the safety of our service members and Iraqi civilians, but it also serves as a propaganda tool for al-Qaeda.

In addition, al-Qaeda — an organization most Iraqis despise — represents just a small segment of the immense insurgency in the civil war in Iraq.

The president also conveniently forgets to mention that there was no significant al-Qaeda activity in Iraq before the U.S.-led invasion.

Opponents of withdrawal often assert that we have a moral responsibility to Iraqis and that there will be a power vacuum once the United States withdraws, with civil war and potentially genocide likely to ensue.

The tragic truth is the conflict has already set in motion genocidal violence throughout the nation. West Baghdad is being ethnically "cleansed," according to Middle East specialist Colonel Patrick Lang, who added that the United States simply does not have the troops to control it.

General Tony McPeak echoed this sentiment when he remarked in March, "Even if we had a million men to go in, it's too late now. Humpty Dumpty can't be put back together again."

The United States does have a moral responsibility to Iraq, considering that several hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis have been killed so far. We cannot repay that immense toll.

But our nation can listen to the will of the Iraqi people and parliament.

The overwhelming majority of Iraqis (more than 70 percent) want a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. forces. A majority of the parliament and top Iraqi leaders agree.

As for what withdrawal will look like, recent "war games" by the military show that Iraq would likely separate into three autonomous regions.

Iraq's neighbors, all of which have been threatened or attacked by al-Qaeda-affiliated groups, have some stake in a stable Iraq without influence from terrorist groups. However, none of these countries can start to assist Iraq in the continued presence of the American occupation.

As the Financial Times unambiguously stated, "A decision to depart unequivocally [and completely] can be the last best chance at preventing the conflict from boiling over beyond Iraq to the whole region."

The grim consensus is undeniable; there are no good solutions at this point.

One thing is clear, however: Those who advocate President Bush's "stay the course" strategy are leading this country on a perilous path against the will of both nations.

The tragedy of the entire Iraq debacle is that withdrawal remains, at best, the least disastrous of all options.