We are caught up in a worldwide war against an irreconcilable enemy who seeks to destroy us and will use nuclear or biological weapons if they can get them. And they mean literally destroy us ... whether it's Afghanistan, it's Iraq, it's Iran, it is the problems in Syria, it's the 300 people who were killed in Algeria a week ago, the 200 people killed in India a month ago...
-- Newt Gingrich, CBS' Face The Nation, 5/6/07

...Iraq is not about a civil war. Iraq is about Al Qaeda and 76 other terrorist groups operating there, and all of their effort is aimed at defeating the United States ... it's Al Qaeda and their affiliates who have made Iraq the central front in their war with us. And we have to remember they started this, not us. And if we don't take on Al Qaeda there, in Iraq, where do we take on Al Qaeda? Where do we take on radical Islam who is hellbent on killing Americans and our allies?
-- House Minority Leader John Boehner, Fox News Sunday, 5/6/07

Bush is at 28%. 64% of Americans want a timetable for a 2008 withdrawal from Iraq. Twice as many as Americans believe, if we stay in Iraq, that terrorist attacks on the U.S. are more likely than less likely.

Yet we should be not sanguine about the state of our foreign policy debate. Because we're barely having one.

The intentionally oversimplified conservative worldview is still being consistently articulated, without being challenged directly. As it was on Sunday with Gingrich and Boehner.

That's a dangerous situation. Conservatives may be down. But by allowing them to inaccurately frame the overall debate, they can get back up.

Democratic opposition to the Iraq war has become clearer and stronger. Presidential candidates are beginning to give speeches offering foreign policy vision.

But we do not see those speeches become centerpieces of debate. We do not see Democratic leaders regularly debunking the false premises of the conservative worldview, to best crystallize the choice the people have for our foreign policy direction,

What exactly needs to be challenged?

On the region: That we face a singular "Islamofacist" terrorist threat.

This is how they justify staying in Iraq, and set the stage for future invasions, by saying it's all part of a larger war.

But there is not a singular threat. We are not in a World War III against a global Islamofascist army.

We face a region where average people are suffocated and manipulated by various autocrats, theocrats, terrorist organizations and political militias, with different agendas and allegiances.

Misrepresenting and demagoguing the situation is how we got mired in Iraq, and how we will get mired in more countries.

On Iraq: That withdrawing would happen in a vacuum.

Redeployment is only part of a fundamental change in strategy -- unequivocally scrapping the neoconservative goal of a permanent military presence in Iraq.

That would dramatically change the political dynamic -- dissipating Iraqi animosity towards us and giving neighboring nations reason to work with us, maximizing our ability to make diplomacy work.

On Iran: That Ahmadinejad runs the place, and that negotiations would be pointless.

Ahmadinejad is not the Supreme Leader, not commander-in-chief, and not in control of any nuclear program. Further, his political standing was weakened in Iran's most recent elections. There are other members in Iran's fractured government we can more easily talk to.

Conservatives are fond of asking: "just what are you willing to give up" to Iran, and no one ever seems to answer the question.

But the common ground to be had is easy to articulate:

Intrusive weapons inspections, border control and an end to support for anti-Israel groups, in exchange for normalized relations, economic assistance and renouncement of U.S. permanent bases in Iraq.

On Israel: That the current foreign policy course we're on is good for Israel.

We need to encourage peace between Israel and its neighbors, not undermine potential progress as has continually happened in the last several years.

There have been openings for an agreement with Syria, for moderation of Hamas following democratic elections, for strengthening of Lebanon's elected government and weakening of Hezbollah.

But they have all been missed under the current myopic foreign policy.

To protect ourselves and others from the threat of terrorist organizations, we need to be a positive force for freedom and stability, and take away the ability for terror organizations to gain political support and grow their ranks.

Unilateral military strikes, occupations against the will of sovereign people, hypocritical support for autocrats, and ignoring diplomatic opportunities have all served to destabilize the Gulf region and impede democracy.

That's the choice.

Or at least, it would be if Democratic leaders consistently challenged the false conservative worldview, and made plain what the differences are.