Limited U.S. options on Iraq  MUNICH: Iraq is not looking good for the Americans and British. Withdrawal appears to be the obvious option. But 130,000 U.S. soldiers cannot just get out quickly: a withdrawal that doesn't equate to wild flight requires a plan. The only ways out are to carry on or to divide Iraq. British and American voters will soon put a stop to the carry-on option. And division? It would create new prospects, but also unmanageable problems. The likelihood that Iraq can save itself from collapse is falling daily, while in Afghanistan the odds are 50-50. Since the West's failure both in Iraq and Afghanistan would strengthen those forces in the Islamic world with which the United States and Europe can hardly find a consensus, reinforced engagement at least in Afghanistan would be worthwhile. But the will for more engagement is not apparent, as is evident in Germany. Canada's stretched Afghan mission  TORONTO: Our military, with more than 60,000 regular staff including nearly 20,000 in the army, cannot sustain 2,500 troops in Afghanistan for two more years. At least we apparently cannot without having to consider pressing sailors and air crew into some form of support role in Afghanistan in order to spell soldiers who might otherwise be taxed with a second or third dangerous six-month combat tour before the current mission winds down. Before Prime Minister Stephen Harper considers cannibalizing one military service to feed another, calling up reservists or lengthening tours of duty, Ottawa must more effectively press our NATO allies to help out. NATO has 30,000 troops in Afghanistan, but 10,000 are being held back from danger zones. That leaves the Americans, Canadians, British and Dutch doing most of the heavy fighting. Let's share the risk.  Negative fallout from quitting Iraq  EDINBURGH: The temptation to cut and run from Iraq is growing stronger. But consider the negative consequences: Iraq would descend into outright civil war and most likely split into three ethnic zones - Kurdish, Shiite and Sunni. We would bear a heavy moral responsibility for that tragedy. But that would not be the end of the matter. A divided Iraq is a weak Iraq. The bellicose Iranian regime would spread its influence into the oil-rich Shiite part of Iraq, threatening the West's direct interests. As a defensive measure, Saudi Arabia would turn the Sunni shards of Iraq into its own protectorate. Meanwhile, the idea of Turkey accepting an independent Kurdistan is risible. Quitting Iraq early would culminate in yet more terrorism and religious strife. The reality is that we have created the mess in Iraq and we cannot walk away from it without making things even worse.