No easy way out.

Byline: The Register-Guard

Serious students of spin will want to pay close attention to how the Bush administration reacts to the recent report by Britain's highly regarded Royal Institute of International Affairs on the bleak prospects confronting the United States in Iraq.

Worst-case scenario: Nothing can be done to avert bloody feuding among the Kurdish, Shia and Sunni factions, leading to fragmentation, chaos and civil war, accelerating widespread instability throughout the region.

But before that grim assessment is dismissed as more of the same from the nattering nabobs of negativism, check out the institute's best-case scenario: The Bush Doctrine, which virtually guaranteed the creation of a full-fledged democracy in Iraq friendly to the West, is hopelessly naive. The most the United States and its allies can hope for is a "muddle-through" scenario in which enormous amounts of money and military might are expended just to keep the country from disintegrating.

The sobering report comes not from President Bush's political enemies, but from from the nation that is his most steadfast ally in Iraq. It was prepared by an independent group of foreign affairs experts whose scholars frequently advise the British government and the Foreign Office on international issues. This is not a Chicken Little outfit.

The core problem identified by institute analysts is, if not our worst nightmare, at least a really bad dream that could last a long, long time. There is no good news here for anyone searching for a short-term exit strategy, particularly Sen. John Kerry and especially the hard-core "get out of Iraq now" crowd. There is simply no easy way out of Iraq that doesn't invite massive bloodshed, not even with substantial United Nations or European help.

The fragmentation of Iraq is the "default" scenario, the report says, and will occur if American-led forces pull out of the country too quickly or if the U.S. government imposes its vision on the country too rigidly. "Under this scenario," the report says, "antipathy to the U.S. presence grows, not so much in a unified Iraqi nationalist backlash, but rather in a fragmented manner that could presage civil war if the U.S. cuts and runs."

The Royal Institute analysis adds credence to a collection of anecdotal reports from U.S. journalists in Iraq indicating that the insurgency is stronger and more widespread than official reports have acknowledged. Fallujah, Samarra, Ramadi and Sadr City are controlled by insurgents.

Furthermore, deep resentment of the U.S. occupation is growing among all factions in Iraq, even those who acknowledge that they are much better off free of the brutal Saddam Hussein. That resentment fuels an irrational and fatalistic sense among many Iraqis that if it takes nationwide chaos and violence to rid their homeland of American troops, then that is a price that must be paid.

While Kerry can still score political points blasting Bush for failing to adequately plan how to "win the peace," it's time to hear in much greater detail what a Kerry administration would do differently in Iraq. Because it's clear from the Royal Institute's report that we're likely to be hearing the words "Iraq," "quagmire" and "Vietnam" mentioned together a lot more often.