But first the two sides will have to agree on the ultimate objective. Do we want to win in Iraq, or simply pull out and trust that the Islamic jihadists will be satisfied with that and go back to tending their goats? It is necessary to ask whether the American people truly realize the depth and persistence of the jihadists' determination to destroy the Western world, and the suicidal lengths to which their supporters are willing to go to bring that about. If we don't, reaching bipartisan agreement on a strategy for the Middle East may prove -- fatally -- impossible.
All this impacts directly, of course, on the presidential election coming up in 2008, and on the two parties' choice of presidential candidates. Assuming we are still enmeshed in some sort of military operation in the Middle East, both candidates will be expected to outline pretty clearly what their ongoing policy would be. One or both may be tempted to adopt Richard Nixon's strategy in 1968: to hint that he had a "secret plan" for extricating us from Vietnam, without specifying exactly what it was. But this time the American people will surely want to know more.
So the 2008 election, and its preliminaries in the party primaries, the conventions, and the election campaign itself, will almost certainly constitute a Great Debate on the future of U.S. foreign policy, with particular reference to the threat from Islam.
Meanwhile, the 2006 elections have ended the long Republican monopoly on running the nation's affairs. The Democrats, ready or not, are back in the game, and the nation's future depends on what turns out to be the meaning of "bipartisanship."