The syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer also is right to argue that there is a difference between “giving” a civil war and failing to prevent one.

But I disagree with Krauthammer – a circumstance to which I am unaccustomed – when he writes: “Iraqis were given their freedom and yet many have chosen civil war.” Only a small minority of Iraqis, I think, have made that choice. Most simply have no idea how to defend the liberties suddenly thrust upon them.

John Burns of The New York Times, the best reporter covering Iraq, recently told NBC’s Tim Russert that while “American troops were greeted as liberators” immediately after the overthrow of Saddam, enthusiasm for the intervention diminished quickly once it became clear that U.S. forces could not -- or would not -- protect Iraqis from the terrorists in their midst.

Yes, it would have been wonderful had Iraqis spontaneously organized their own defense. But is it so astonishing that they did not? Burns said that longtime observers of Iraq “completely miscalculated the impact of 30 years of violent, brutal repression on the Iraqi people and their willingness, in President Bush's phrase, ‘to stand up’ for themselves, to take authority, to take risks … Iraq was, by a long way, saving only North Korea, the nastiest place I've ever been. It was a truly terrible place …”

Now, a last-ditch effort is being made to eliminate the terrorists from Baghdad, to give the majority of Iraqis a safe space to come together in opposition to a fanatical and ruthless minority that believes it can pave a path to power with carnage and chaos.

There is ample precedent for that belief. Mithal al-Alusi and others like him can only pray that Americans will find the will and a way to help decent Iraqis – a majority, I think -- carve out an exception.