Whether it will be able to come up with a solution that reduces the chaos in Iraq and saves some face is another question.

Robert Hunter, who is now a senior adviser to the Rand Institute's Washington office and was U.S. ambassador to NATO from 1993 to 1998, told us he sees some hope in the flurry of activity. If the United States is able to turn more authority over to the Iraqis and they begin to deal with the guerrilla problems, perhaps the United States could go back to the Europeans and get more help - although the attack on the Italians, combined with the recent refusal of the Japanese and Danes to commit more resources at this time, complicates matters.

"I would let the Europeans write the next U.N. resolution, make Paul Bremer the U.N. representative, and make it a NATO operation," Mr. Hunter said. "The U.S. would still have plenty of effective control."

Marina Ottaway, a senior associate in the Democracy and Rule of Law Project at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, told us she sees "a sense of desperation - and I use the word advisedly - on the part of the administration." There seems to be no single figure in Iraq, comparable to a Hamid Karzai in Afghanistan, able to command respect or at least acquiescence from all factions. So it will be difficult to come up with a credible government, either before or after a constitution is written.

Ms. Ottaway's suggestion is to start with a simple document that would set up procedures to elect a constituent assembly that could then set up an interim government of "national reconciliation" that could then take the time to write an acceptable constitution. But she notes that the Kurds, who have more experience with semi-autonomous rule and more representation than they might have in a democratic assembly, might resist such a plan. The Shiites, on the other hand, who are a majority in the country, might resist anything other than a newly elected assembly. So it will be difficult to move in any direction.

Charles Pena of the libertarian Cato Institute sees last week's flurry of activity as a wake-up call. "If we don't move faster toward Iraqi sovereignty," he told us, "the situation might spin completely out of U.S. control, and it really will be a quagmire." He also notes that these moves come at a time when opinion polls are not in the president's favor and there's an election in less than a year.

Mr. Pena believes the only realistic options available now are in the least-harmful category, that we should harbor no illusions that the rosy scenario of establishing a functioning democracy in Iraq to serve as a beacon and model for other Middle Eastern countries is likely. Therefore, he would inform the Iraqis that we are turning their country back to them and beginning an orderly withdrawal of American troops. U.S. leaders should make it clear that America will be back if evidence is found that the new Iraq is harboring or supporting al-Qaida or any other terrorist group that might attack the United States, but other than that the Iraqis should figure out how to govern their country themselves.

We're inclined to agree. There are some things even a superpower cannot accomplish realistically, and governing a country with ancient traditions, stubborn ethnic and religious divisions, and a recent history of vicious dictatorship, is one of them. Withdrawing from Iraq might be embarrassing in the short run, but we believe it is the best course in the long run. There is a danger of more conflict, of course, but the U.S. presence complicates matters, and it's time to admit it.

Like most people at most times and places, the Iraqi people will assume responsibility for themselves when genuine responsibility is thrust upon them. The longer the transition to full Iraqi sovereignty, the more Iraqis will be tempted to lean upon - and blame - outside forces. The more quickly we find a graceful way to exit Iraq the better, both for Iraq and for the genuine security of the United States.