Jonah Goldberg of National Review proposes an interesting idea: “Why not let the Iraqis have a referendum on whether US forces should stay?”

Goldberg then lists a number of reasons why such a move would be beneficial:

The formation of the government is the last major political benchmark for the Iraqis, and it’s not going well. Sectarian feelings have hardened and there are few events left that can foster a sense of national unity. But a national referendum on whether Americans should stay would be exactly that.

If Iraqis vote yes on continuing America’s presence — which I think they would — the Iraqi people will feel more “bought-in” to America’s project.

It will once again signal that America is on the side of democracy while many of its opponents are not.

It will (further) pull anti-American elements into the electoral process.

It will take the burden off the new government of seeming like a lap dog to the gringos. The president and prime minister can say “I’m bowing to the will of the people” or “this issue has been settled by the people already” whenever presented with that charge.

It would deflate the impact of the “occupiers” epithet against Americans.

It would send an important signal to opponents of the war in Europe and America about the nature of the project. Could Ted Kennedy really say this is a war for Bush’s ego or for oil with so much spittle if the Iraqi people poured into the polls to ask for America to stay?

It would help American troop morale.

It would take the heat off allies — current or future — when it comes to helping in the war effort.

It would marry Iraqi nationalism to democratic norms and force Iraqis to think very seriously about what their country would like if America left.

Even the American media would have to celebrate such an event.

It would further bind the next president — Democratic or Republican — to finishing the job in Iraq.

I think it’s a great idea, regardless of the outcome.

If Iraq asks the U.S. to leave, then Iraq takes immediate responsibility for its own security situation. While that could lead to short-term instability, the instability itself could push the Iraqis to a breaking point where they have to choose between complete chaos and resolving differences through the political processes that the U.S. helped erect. The choice between peace and civil war can only be made by the Iraqis themselves. But currently, the continued U.S. presence gives the Iraqi factions an excuse to avoid making that decision while the responsibility for security still rests largely on the U.S.

And if the Iraqis vote to keep the U.S. forces longer, the vote confers legitimacy on our presence there in a way that no external actor (like the U.N. or the E.U.) could do. It gives cover to us and to our allies, and it takes the argument off the table that “they don’t want us there in the first place.” American support for the war effort would increase as well, because the politicians and media elite demagoguing the issue would be putting forth a position—namely, that we shouldn’t be there—that the Iraqis voters themselves visibly rejected.

In either case, such a vote could be helpful, although in different ways.