Every time an American soldier falls in Iraq – a disturbingly frequent occurrence in recent days – concerned minds should ask: How much longer will the Bush administration persist with the fiction that the United States and its allies have sufficient military capabilities to end a conflict that now stretches well into its third year?

Indeed, how can U.S. officials even dare propose a substantial withdrawal of American troops from Iraq in 2006?

An anticipated drawdown in the face of victory would resonate plausibly. Similar talk under the questionable circumstances that currently exist inspires little confidence and may virtually guarantee the nonstop revisiting of the last week’s gruesome toll. If I were an insurgent in Iraq, I would see opportunity in all directions.

During the past several days, the insurgents have taken advantage of some of those opportunities, and the casualties have hailed mainly from Ohio. Tomorrow, the casualties may disproportionately affect another state although, truly, every fallen soldier belongs to all Americans. That is no way to wage – or win – a war.

Now, no one should expect to intervene in another country without fatalities. But the U.S. government should not have to stretch and contort its messages for Americans to understand that the sacrifice of their family members and other loved ones serves the national interest.

Let me be clear. I believe that the Bush administration prematurely rushed into Iraq, and I said so well in advance of the intervention. Subsequently, as Iraq developed into a major front in the war against terrorism, I understood the danger and the need for the United States to retain troops there until the new Iraqi government was capable of defending itself.

But we have not yet arrived at that point, nor can we realistically hope to reach it by this time next year – unless we and our allies, especially in NATO, manage to dispatch enough troops, an additional 100,000 or more, to lock down Iraq from end to end. I am talking about the kind of lockdown that should have been imposed town by town and region by region during the early days of the intervention, one that would allow the rounding up of disruptive parties, the confiscation of weapons, the sealing of borders and other necessary steps.

Otherwise, Americans will continue to witness horrific hemorrhaging that, with each passing week, will stiffen their opposition to the intervention and induce them to press for premature withdrawal. What could be more pleasing to the insurgents, whether they swear allegiance to terrorism, Saddam Hussein’s old system or some other errant calling?

If the Bush administration has no intention of gathering sufficient troops to complete the task, it might as well pull out the ones currently deployed, spare American families further misery, and let Iraq slide down the tubes into chaos this year rather than next.

But that would not serve the best interests of Americans, Iraqis, Europeans and others who stand to gain immeasurably from a secure and democratic Iraq. If we wish to deliver a safer world to our children, eliminating the roots of extremism in places such as Iraq is critical. If we leave Iraq and kindred problem areas to the vagaries of the wind and the manipulation of diabolical misfits, their troubles eventually will drift to America, and the casualties we now sustain will appear small by comparison.

America went to war in Iraq, as Secretary of State Donald Rumsfeld once famously said, with the Army it had, not the one it wanted. Well, it was still enormously capable and powerful. I happen to believe that the U.S. military could handle Iraq or any other crisis, if released from artificial constraints that appear driven by political considerations.

Every new American casualty in Iraq tells us that the current strategy is not working. The troops on the ground have known that for some time. The insurgents know it. So does the Iraqi population and anyone else who has examined the crisis in an objective manner.

The situation leaves the United States with three clear choices: the status quo, which would allow the insurgents to sap the mission’s remaining strength; withdrawal, which would doom Iraq to relentless turmoil; or decisive action, which would finish the job properly. The last option is the only one that would serve long-term U.S. interests, while offering relief from what has become, for many Americans, the most painful and dubious phase of the intervention.