Dan Rather

Talk about a crystallising moment. While Americans gathered together for Thanks-giving, Iraq was experiencing its worst single episode of sectarian violence. By the end of the long weekend, various media and press outlets were calling the situation in Iraq an outright civil war, a trend that accelerated as the long week progressed.

What's in a name? Perhaps everything, given the influence it can have on American perceptions, as in "We don't want our men and women in uniform refereeing a civil war." Or, perhaps, nothing. Whatever name we choose to give now to what is happening in Iraq, it has been going on for some time. Former White House adviser David Gergen, interviewed on 'NPR', may have offered the most concise assessment when he said, "Whether you want to call it civil war or not ... is almost irrelevant; what we do have is growing chaos."

This growing chaos has left President Bush's present Iraq policy in tatters. It also threatens to spill over Iraq's borders. Last week, The New York Times reported the assertion by a 'senior American intelligence official' that Hezbollah, acting with the blessing of Iran and possibly Syria, has been active in training Shi'ite militias in Iraq. Meantime, Nawaf Obaid, an adviser to the Saudi Arabian Government, spelled out in The Washington Post what he believes would be the consequences if the U.S. withdraws 'prematurely' from Iraq: "massive Saudi intervention to stop Iranian-backed Shi'ite militias from butchering Iraqi Sunnis."

Mr. Obaid's predictions came in an op-ed piece that carried the disclaimer that it does "not reflect official Saudi policy," but given his demonstrable knowledge of Saudi politics and policy discussions, his statement that "The Saudi leadership is preparing to substantially revise its Iraq policy" seems credible. And his assessment of the risk of a regional war - "so be it" - is chilling.

Completing the mission

It seems at least possible that some variation on this message was delivered to Vice-President Dick Cheney when he was summoned to Saudi Arabia earlier this week. Given this and President Bush's renewed vow that he will not "pull the troops off the battlefield before the mission is complete," a withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq does not appear likely in the near future, despite mounting political pressure here at home.

So what is to be done if we remain amid the chaos? The bind in which Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki finds himself was illustrated perfectly when lawmakers and cabinet officials loyal to Shi'ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr responded to the Prime Minister's decision to meet with President Bush by boycotting participation in the Iraqi Government. Moqtada al-Sadr and his militia symbolise the problem in Iraq; he is also Iraq's kingmaker, the man most responsible for Maliki's election as prime minister.

Perhaps the momentary defection of the Sadrists will provide the opportunity for a breakthrough in taming the Shi'ite militia's grip on Iraq. But for the moment, Prime Minister Maliki's bind is also President Bush's. He cannot pull our troops out of Iraq, yet his past reliance on rhetoric about Iraq's democratic elections means he is beholden to Iraqi political realities if he keeps the troops there.

In recent weeks, President Bush has stressed his willingness to be 'flexible' in his Iraq policy. As things stand now in that country and in the region, it may take the flexibility of a Houdini to turn things around. Indications are that it will almost certainly take the help of Iraq's neighbours - both friends of the U.S. and, possibly, foes as well. It will also take measures of humility and realism from the President himself.

Whatever you call what's happening in Iraq, it's a real and present danger with no discernible end in sight.

Dan Rather is an American television commentator.