The time for pussyfooting in Iraq is over.

The first thing I would do is change the operation names. "Operation Iron Hammer"? Are they kidding? The U.S., remember, has already had an "Operation Blast Furnace" (Bolivia), an "Operation Joint Forge" (Bosnia), and an "Operation Noble Anvil" (Kosovo). What are we, the United Blacksmiths of America?

The answer to that question is, no, we're not. We're the mightiest military force the world has ever seen. And I'm beginning to think it's time we started acting like it.

The spectacle of last week's embarrassing events ought to send shivers up the spine of anyone who derives comfort from our great power status. In case you missed it, the U.S. responded to a series of suicide attacks with a volley of deranged, incoherent strikes at empty buildings. In particular, the U.S. rocketed an abandoned dye plant at the edge of Baghdad, making sure that it was empty first, and not even destroying the structure but simply shooting it full of holes to render it dysfunctional. It had not been functioning anyway. The "new 'get tough' policy" (what was it before?), code-named Iron Hammer, was designed, allied commanders told reporters, to "send a message." Here is how the AP described that "message":

On Thursday, U.S. soldiers with loudspeakers drove through the neighborhood warning occupants to leave before the impending strike. Later, at least nine large-caliber shells were fired into the empty plant, heavily damaging the structure. The tactical goal was not immediately clear since this sprawling metropolis of 5 million people has other sites to launch attacks.

That last sentence, with the "sprawling metropolis" line, is about as sarcastic as wire service reporters get. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the AP has reigned as humanity's most impenetrable fortress of unfunniness. So when even they are laughing at you, you know you have problems.

And what's not to laugh at? In response to an actual attack that killed numerous human beings, we race to the edge of town, drive through a neighborhood from the safety of an armored vehicle shouting harried warnings in what was doubtless an hilarious computer-generated Arabic-and then shell an abandoned factory with an AC-130 gunship, not even leveling the thing but just shooting it full of holes. The plant's owner, Waad Dakhel al-Boulani, said the only weapon found was a Kalashnikov belonging to the plant guard.

This is not how Stalin would have handled the situation. One suicide attack would have been enough for ol' Joe. By the next morning, that "sprawling metropolis of 5 million inhabitants" would have been a slightly less sprawling metropolis of four million. Then he would have stacked the bodies on the site of a former Baghdad children's hospital, had fifty snow machines flown in, then invited Mr. Cheeky AP Reporter to observe his soldiers skiing naked down the south face into a pool of Miller Lite. Feel like making any jokes now?

It's time that all of us who opposed the war start admitting the uncomfortable truth. Yes, it was morally wrong for us to go in there. And yes, if we had any guts at all, we'd surrender the territory to the United Nations tomorrow, cut our losses and get out. But letting the whole world watch us get kicked around like students at a Swiss finishing school isn't too good, either. It might give people ideas. I'm sure it already has.

Therefore I propose that the anti-war crowd immediately abandon all hope and adopt, for the sake of the nation, a policy of total commitment. Morally, Iraq is not a salvageable situation. There is, however, still a chance to turn this thing around and send a real message to the world, one that will resonate for years to come. All that is required of us is a willingness to accept certain changes in our political outlook.

The core problem involves the morale of the U.S. fighting man, who really is the greatest fighting man in the world. He does not know what he's fighting for. So let's give him something to fight for. To once again recall one of my favorite sayings, by economist Lawrence Summers: "No one has ever washed a rental car." The U.S. soldier in Iraq today thinks that he is fighting on someone else's land, for someone else's freedom. This would not be the case if we simply declared Iraq a territory of the United States, seized the country's assets, stuck an NFL franchise in Baghdad and told our soldiers that they were fighting to retain the territorial integrity of our nation. A new G.I. bill for Iraqi property purchases might provide a valuable incentive here.

That done, no soldier would ever again ask, "Why are they fighting us?" Instead, they would say, "Of course they're fighting us! Bring it on!" Because that is what the defeated subjects of seized colonies do-for a while. Until they run out of males between the ages of 11 and 60. Hell, it took us three years of inspired killing to subdue the Filipinos at the turn of the last century. And they were little people! In the meantime, military strategy in Iraq-currently tortured and hopelessly compromised by political considerations-would be vastly simplified. Shoot everything that moves; use nukes if you have to. No more of this "Operation Pointy Mallet" stuff. Try "Operation Flee You Bastards," or "Operation Get Some!" Or maybe even: "Operation Tomahawk Missile Fo' Yo' Ass!" These are names that would genuinely scare not only the enemy, but everyone, if there is any difference.

Geopolitically, it's a no-brainer. No one would stop us. Certainly the governments of the E.U., Japan and Russia would realize instantly that there is no functional difference here between outright manly annexation and the policy we're currently pursuing, which is a kind of apologetic, sneaky, piddly-shit annexation. If those countries were really against our seizure of Iraq, against it to the point of opposing us with nuclear weapons, they would have done so already. But no one out there with any infrastructure worth preserving wants to dance with us, you can bet on that. We complained a lot about France last year. Shit, we should thank God that the French are the sniveling, inveterate cowards that they are. They wouldn't sacrifice lunch to stop us from taking over the Middle East, much less Paris.

The important thing to remember about the mess in Iraq is that it's not a problem intrinsic to that territory. The territory of Iraq is ideologically neutral-a wide, stony plain interspersed with sandy stretches, generally uninhabitable outside the alluvial plain but nonetheless quite pleasant generally, with adequate soil and rainfall, and excellent opportunities for oil cultivation. There is a sea coast with, I am told, a sumptuous variety of shellfish off its beaches. Certainly there is nothing about this land that is inherently hostile to the vibrant, enterprising people of the United States.

No, the problems we are having in Iraq are of a more temporary, resolvable nature. The Iraqi people, themselves migrants who arrived over a period of centuries, are the true obstacle. They present a serious threat only within the artificial parameters of the relative "guilt" or "innocence" of its population. If we remove these considerations, we remove the threat. To quote Stalin: No person, no problem. A few years of meat farming and it's beach blanket bingo, baby. Who'd be laughing then?