I have heard from my “advisory councils” on Iraq in the past week or so – my customary cluster of experts and an informal group consisting of readers of this column. I appreciate the input.

But to those who vehemently reject a military solution, endorse the status quo or oppose my prescription of a rapid infusion of more troops, I stand firm. I wish to end the Iraq imbroglio conclusively and efficiently, not cut and run or drag out a lethargic intervention.

That goal is still achievable. A beefier force would be more capable of rounding up insurgents, disrupting their recruiting efforts and keeping foreign-generated troublemakers out of the country.

My first “council,” which has grown since I began intently watching Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s, has consisted of: seasoned U.S. and foreign Iraq analysts; current and former U.S. and foreign government officials; American military personnel, active and retired, at various levels; foreign correspondents; business people who work in the region; Iraqi professionals, elected officials, academics and ordinary citizens; Iraqi exiles; and domestic and foreign specialists in terrorism and insurgencies.

They represent an impressive array of brainpower, knowledge and experience, with a multitude of voices and perspectives. Their most compelling and useful views often insinuate themselves into my columns, although my final opinions are my own. Some of my advisers, I should add, believe it’s too late for a military solution and view a once-possible lockdown as improbable now. Others tell me I’m on track.

Some of those in the reader “council” have rushed to support President George W. Bush, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. “Let them do their jobs. They know what is happening on the ground,” they have urged.

On many occasions in the past, in dealing with other issues, I have agreed with and expressed respect for those leaders. I have exchanged ideas on international topics, including Iraq, with Bush. I defended Rumsfeld when others wished to oust him after the Iraq campaign showed signs of souring. And I have participated in detailed foreign-policy discussions with Rice on Iraq and other topics.

I continue to respect them. But I have come to disagree with their public assessment that the situation in Iraq is well in hand, that no additional military forces are needed, that the insurgents’ capabilities have peaked, and that the end is near enough to project U.S. troop withdrawals by next year. If that were the case, I would be the first and loudest cheerleader.

For nearly a year, I have urged that more troops – at least 100,000 – be sent to Iraq to stanch that country’s growing instability. That responsibility should not fall entirely to the United States, but the Bush administration will have to take the lead, as it did with the original intervention. U.S. officials should:

¢ Demonstrate that the United States is taking the initiative by immediately ordering another 50,000 American troops to Iraq.

¢ Negotiate with current allies who contribute forces in Iraq to boost their troop commitments. Some already are planning or considering increases. Even small troop additions would help.

¢ Make a concerted effort to engage non-military participants in the U.S.-led coalition, especially those with experienced, professional forces such as Colombia.

¢ Widen the participation of the peshmerga, the Kurdish fighters who have assisted in northern Iraq.

¢ Take advantage of recent improvements in U.S.-European relations to press NATO to contribute beyond the training of Iraqi officers. Even in the area of training, though, they could greatly expand their efforts so that Iraqis may take up more of the burden.

¢ Reach out to countries such as France and Russia that long for their pre-intervention roles in Iraq.

¢ Consider a return to the United Nations, which at some point may need to dispatch peacekeepers to Iraq.

I am not suggesting that any of this will fall into place easily. But the window of opportunity is closing in Iraq. Without strong, proactive moves, led by the United States, the only likely outcomes I see at this point are a hasty withdrawal or an agonizing status quo, both of which would point toward defeat.