OK, I didn't mean EXACTLY that, but it's hard to summarize it in the title. So here is a high-level version of what I am thinking and I welcome a lively discussion on it, which I have no doubt will much improve it.....
1) Right now every conservative bloviator is trying to sucker Democrats into coming up with their own plan. These paid liars and prevaricators know full well: that there are almost as many ideas for Iraq as there are Democratic lawmakers; that the situation is so dire that no alternative is likely to succeed; and that the president is the commander in chief and therefore controls what happens on the ground anyway, so unless both bush and cheney are impeached and pelosi takes over, the whole point of a Democratic plan is moot. So any plan by the Democrats is likely to turn only into a liability for them.
(Actually, the message of the voters was for george to go to crawford and stay there for the rest of his term while the Congress decides just what to do with him, but we know that ain't going to happen.)
So the calls for a Democratic plan should be rejected, but what do they offer instead? There is actually A LOT that Congress can do without getting entangled into a plan, and here is how to get started:
2) What the House (which controls the purse) should to is to DEFINE what it means to WIN in Iraq, and what are the BENCHMARKS for success: fewer troops on the ground, fewer troops and civilians killed, improving local sentiment, reducing corruption, time frame, etc. NO MORE MONEY unless a new, realistic and detailed plan is presented by the Administration within the year, the benchmarks are being met and progress is being made towards the overall goal of WINNING as DEFINED by the House in its sole discretion as representative of the People of America, not by the discredited Administration.
This would keep the neocons and the president duly occupied with fixing the messes they already created instead of creating new ones.
3) The SENATE (which confirms presidential appointees) should do is to oversee who is charged with executing the ADMINISTRATION's plan and their job performance, and decide whether the administration's nominees or current appointees are up to the job in Iraq, as well as investigate on their continued ability to achieve the objectives set out by the House
4) The only Democrats who should talk about their plan for Iraq are the 2008 presidential hopefuls, and only hypothetically since they are not the president. Let's hope that those among them who are dumb enough to get suckered into coming up with an Iraq plan will impale themselves on and be screened out of the race by the time of the primaries.
Let me close this by suggesting that sometimes it's better for the country to lose a battle - or even a whole campaign, like Iraq - than it is to seek to win it at the expense of being in a position to win the broader war.