I think the time is ripe for those of us in the opposition trenches to speak together with a unifying slogan to gain the political offensive - a framing device, that encapsulates our alternative to the "stay-the-course" foolishness of the Bush administration on Iraq.
That position has clearly become untenable for Iraq hawks. Not often do I read David Brooks, let alone cite him. But when he says the Bush crowd must "do something different," (NYTimes op ed 28 August 2005) then you know conventional rightist wisdom has turned. We must get out in front of the next phase of Iraq War policy before BushCo has a chance to frame it to advantage.
My recommendation for a progressive framing slogan is "negotiated withdrawal."
Why is this phrase useful to us?
1. It sets up a contrast with the entire Bush agenda in Iraq, and in foreign affairs generally. This is our counter to the "with us or against us," "my way or the highway" cowboy "diplomacy" that has characterized the Bush administration approach all along.
2. It attacks what's left of a Bush key strength among the American electorate - his "strength and resolve" - precisely as the wisdom of the direction that resolve has taken us is widely being called into question.
3. It frames a strong predicate for isolating those operatives of the Bush apparatus most widely associated with the hard-line, "take the fight to the enemy" crowd, such as Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Bolton, just as these folks are targets of particular disquiet among those former Bush supporters who might be peeled off with a close-to-home argument, For example: a) Cheney, oil industry, gas prices b) Rumsfeld, Iraqi debacle, Gold-Star Moms c) Bolton, diplomatic isolation, American war spending and economic troubles. (I'll note that Brooks today is blaming Rumsfeld for poor Iraq planning and execution - the Sec Def is definitely vulnerable, and is a likely high-level scapegoat for what looks to be a worsening situation in theater.)
4. It is broad-brush enough to indicate a definite change of overall direction, while leaving open a wide range of possible recommendations for implementation strategies and tactics. The obvious question that "negotiated withdrawal" raises, is "negotiate with whom?" There are many existing entities and groups we can site as potential negotiating partners - e.g., NATO, the EU, the UN Security Council, the Arab League, etc. We can also propose (this has been done before, but not as part of a comprehensive negotiating strategy) the convening of a regional conference to negotiate terms of American "disengagement" (a cognate slogan that reinforces the attractiveness of the "withdrawal" meme). We can also propose new negotiations within Iraq among political players there. This, I think, is key to drawing a contrast with the failed policies BushCo has so far pursued - American hegemony in Iraqi political processes; insistence on Iraqi political timetables dictated by American, partisan political and economic advantage; dogged pursuit of American private corporation interests in Iraqi "reconstruction"; refusal to lay-out reasoned expectations for the nature of future American presence in Iraq. "Negotiated withdrawal" in the Iraqi political-economic context would entail the tabling and discussion of all issues concerning the ends and means of America's role in Iraq.
I do not think "negotiated withdrawal" is a panacea either for "solving the Iraq problem" nor for dispelling all the troubles of disunity and cross-purpose that plague American progressives and the Democratic Party at this crucial time in American history. I do think it is a timely initiative that has the virtue of providing a framework for looking beyond current Irag policies AND bringing our political forces together with a theme we all can embrace and interpret pragmatically.