I honestly have no idea how people can get away with saying things like "the United States and Britain have never attempted a truly comprehensive policy on Iraq," "We have to help Iraq's politicians put the country's unity above their sectarian priorities," "The problems of the federal constitution, the distribution of Iraq's resources and the role of the unofficial militias have to be resolved in the direction of preserving the unity of the nation," and the like -- all of which are included in the above article. I will now light myself on fire.
Any time you read something that talks about what Iraqis "must" do, without following it up with, "here's how," you're getting one of the Sensible Centrist Arguments, which are, of course, part of the Magical Plans Never To Be Implemented genre. Experts in this genre are often "liberals" who advocated the war and cannot quite bring themselves to admit that it's a crippling strategic blunder, therefore feeling obligated to propose solutions that have no chance of being tried, much less actually working.
If people want to spend their time writing wankery think pieces about fantasy pony plans for Iraq they're free to do so, but they should understand that such things have one very real impact on the Iraq debate. Their implicit (and often explicit) criticism is that people who want to get out of Iraq are unserious, because if they were serious they'd sign on to the fantasy pony plan. But the choice will never be between fantasy pony plan and getting out, the choice is between starting to get out or letting George W. Bush continue to fuck things up with HIS fantasy pony plan for Iraq. You know, the current mess. Every person who writes an op-ed with yet another fantasy pony plan for Iraq, no matter how wonderful a pony plan it is, helps to ensure that George W. Bush gets to continue fucking things up for just a little bit longer.
Unless you think that's a tremendously lovely idea, please STFU.