When I knew Michael Eisenstadt, I always got the impression that he was a pragmatic, center-left guy. Unlike most center-left guys, though, he's actually interested in seeing the Iraq project succeed, and has offered practical advice both before and after the invasion. This may come in part from his experience in the reserves, and his participation in the First Gulf War.
I hope that someone in the administration is reading today's Daily Standard, where Michael's offering of good, sound advice on avoiding a sectarian civil war can be found. Here's his conclusion, but read the whole thing.
As the sectarian violence in Iraq increases, the United States cannot afford to be seen standing by while Iraqis slaughter each other; this would further undermine its credibility in Iraq and the region and encourage neighboring states to actively support one side or another, making a bad situation worse. The United States has both a moral obligation to act, and an interest in doing so, when U.S. forces can save innocent lives, and when it has a reasonable chance of limiting or containing the violence. The recent U.S. decision to send thousands of extra troops to Baghdad--the site of most of the sectarian bloodletting of the past few months--is thus a step in the right direction.On the other hand, there is a significant danger that U.S. intervention will further undermine domestic support for an increasingly unpopular war; further stress an already overstretched force; and jeopardize the tacit U.S. alliance with the Shiites, which has underpinned U.S. policy in post-Saddam Iraq. Finding a way to contain the sectarian violence and to balance these latent tensions in U.S. Iraq policy may prove as difficult for Washington as containing the insurgency has been. But it is essential if the United States is yet to achieve an acceptable outcome in Iraq--and if Iraq is to have a future as a viable state.