With conflict seeming to spiral out of control in Iraq, I welcome the latest aggressive military moves by the Iraqi government and U.S. forces. Their actions could point toward a long overdue objective: a lockdown, not only in Baghdad but also throughout the country.

In such a setting, stability and the promise of an emerging democratic system could flourish.

However, Iraq and its allies should avoid placing too many of their bets on bullets and bayonets. Without concurrent – and equally aggressive – initiatives in other areas, especially economic stimulation, Iraqis cannot hope to develop enough of a stake in their future. That many Iraqis find themselves in more difficult circumstances today than they did under Saddam Hussein should inspire greater urgency in finding solutions.

First, though, the military challenge. More than two years ago, before the Bush administration set out to oust Saddam, Iraq already was feeling the impact of its porous borders. The government’s willingness to look away as foreign fighters swarmed in contributed to the problem. Those imported fighters, along with Saddam loyalists and others who find fault with the new Iraq, drive most of the current violence.

Even if the U.S.-led coalition had run the intervention smoothly and avoided mistakes – such as disbanding the Iraqi army and failing to consolidate control over conquered areas – it would have faced the foreign fighters’ fury. By corralling those troublemakers and keeping others out of Iraq, Baghdad would more quickly rise to its feet. The Iraqi government would also have far less difficulty in handling remaining miscreants. With the exception of Saddam die-hards, most Iraqis should eventually find a place in the new Iraq.

Now, I’m not suggesting that weeding out Iraq’s insurgents will come easily. In other Middle East conflicts, such as the Israeli-Palestinian crisis, even a 100 percent effort to put down or erect defenses against terrorism can fail.

However, a lockdown – starting with a virtually impenetrable ring about Baghdad – would signal to the insurgents that their period of relatively free rein has ended. Furthermore, although the insurgents may scoff at offensives such as ongoing U.S. actions in western Iraq, their bold words mask worry. One offensive will not carry the day, but the hundreds the United States is capable of launching might. The insurgents should brace themselves, because the campaign to re-establish control over Iraq has just begun. As the apparent wounding of insurgent leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi demonstrates, they are not invulnerable.

To accomplish that task, the Bush administration will need far more troops in Iraq than at present. That idea probably will rally feeble support, especially so close to Memorial Day, when the nation remembers the more than 1,650 Americans killed in Iraq, along with their brethren from other wars. But if the United States wishes to succeed in Iraq, only a stronger military presence will deliver the necessary edge.

Those who dismissed my proposal last year to send another 100,000 troops to Iraq perhaps now realize that an insufficient force cannot produce stellar results. Whether the additional troops come from the United States or a combination of U.S. and other sources is less important than getting them to Iraq quickly.

As a lockdown fell into place, it would be possible to explore a wider range of economic-stimulation options for Iraqis. Some approaches depend substantially on a more secure environment. For example, one of the most promising proposals during the long term is to establish an oil and gas trust fund. There are numerous versions on the table, but a fund that would direct a share of Iraq’s oil and gas revenues to each province and, just as important, each Iraqi citizen, would ensure fairness and instill hope. All the more reason, then, to thwart insurgents who target oil and gas facilities, as happened Friday at a pipeline near Baghdad.

Other worthwhile proposals – such as giving each Iraqi family $1,000 in return for a meaningful gesture, for instance, the turning in of a weapon – would speed help where it is needed right away.

In the struggle for the hearts and minds of a people, the side offering better prospects for the future, in addition to bullets and bayonets, has greater appeal.