PITY THE POOR Democratic presidential candidates. They're really in a bind: They have no choice but to join in the international rejoicing over the capture of the Butcher of Baghdad, but at the same time they can't simply offer blanket approval for President Bush's Iraq policy. With the economy picking up steam and Bush stealing their best issue with his Medicare bill, they can't afford to give up this all-important area in which to criticize the incumbent. But what can they say when the situation in Iraq appears to be looking up?

Pretty much all of them have been reduced to the same rhetorical trope. Howard Dean: "We must do everything possible to bring the U.N., NATO and other members of the international community back into this effort." John Edwards: "I hope President Bush will use this opportunity to chart a course in Iraq that will bring in our allies in a meaningful way to achieve a democratic and peaceful Iraq." John Kerry: "We need to share the burden, bring in other countries and make it clear to the world that Iraq belongs to the Iraqi people." Even Joe Lieberman, the most stalwart defender of the war effort, joined in: "We've got to seize this moment, bring in the international community to help us rebuild Iraq, ask NATO to join us in the peacekeeping, complete our victory over the insurgents and terrorists that are fighting us and let the Iraqis govern themselves."

This would seem a bit internally inconsistent since the Democrats are calling for Iraq to be turned over to the "international community" and to "the Iraqi people." Which is it? It can't be both. This also conflicts with another standard Democratic criticism--that the administration is guilty of what Kerry has described as a "cut-and-run strategy." What is the Democrats' favored strategy of "internationalizing" Iraq if not another way for the United States to "cut and run"?

Logical inconsistencies aside, the Democratic rhetoric is attractive. Sure, it would be nice to dump Iraq's problems into someone else's lap. Why should we continue to lose our soldiers and spend our money? Let someone else bear the burden. It would also be nice to eat nothing but potato chips and candy bars and never get fat.

But is the Democratic plan a realistic option? Specifically, is there any reason to think that the "international community"--that wonderful abstraction--is ready and willing to assume responsibility for Iraq?

The answer is no. The United Nations pulled out almost all of its staff after its Baghdad headquarters was pulverized in a suicide bombing in August. Secretary-General Kofi Annan has not given any indication that he is rethinking that decision. It's a little difficult to run Iraq--or even to hold an international tribunal to try Saddam Hussein--if you're too scared to go there.

Well, what about NATO? Surely a few car bombings won't scare off the world's mightiest military alliance? On the surface this would seem to be a more plausible option. A number of NATO members, led by Britain, Poland and Spain, already have sizable troop contingents in Iraq, and NATO is already providing some planning capability to support this deployment. It would be great if NATO took a bigger role, but this line of thinking runs smack into the alliance's lack of deployable military assets.