Some Democrats, such as Senator Joseph Biden, say they regret their decision to support the Iraq war. What do you think Democrats overall should be saying and doing?

The Democrats have a responsibility vis à vis the American people: to act as an alternative and to provide a vision of a strategy that avoids the pitfalls of what the Bush administration has created. The fact of the matter is that Democrats failed to do that during the grand debate over whether or not to go to war in Iraq. To be sure, some Democrats can rationalize their decisions by saying they gave the president contingent authority, and he pushed much further and acted unilaterally. Nonetheless, the fact is Democrats, tacitly at the very least, and explicitly in some cases, went along with a presidential decision based on a case that was dubious at best and mendacious at worst. Some leading Democrats have even acted as if they wanted to be part of the Bush cabinet, helping him prosecute the war in Iraq. L'outrance, as the French would say.

Can you name names?
Most people can guess the names. The task for Democrats today is to formulate an alternative approach to problems in the Middle East with some specificity regarding the duration of the war in Iraq, the Israeli-Palestinian peace front, and the nuclear problem posed by Iran. More broadly, Democrats need to articulate a different vision of America's role in the world, placing the issue of terrorism in proper perspective. That means addressing terrorism as a serious threat but not exaggerating it to the degree to which the Bush administration has done. In my view, the Bush administration has pumped up the issue of terrorism to a degree that is, quite literally, creating a fear-driven nation that is rapidly losing international credibility. These in short are some of the tasks that Democrats face. Sadly, they have not lived up to them for a while.

What kind of alternative should Democrats offer?
In my view, the Bush administration has slid into unilateralist posturing. The administration's definition of American leadership is, essentially, "We direct, and you follow". Its most extreme form involves a slogan the president has become fond of: If you're not with us, you're against us. It's a self-defeating posture that undercuts America's capacity to lead. Democrats in particular should promote consensus-building. Consensus means compromise. Consensus means joint action. Consensus means responding to problems with one's trusted friends. Consensus excludes the notion of condemning one's friends as weaklings or weasels if they don't agree with us. That is a prescription for self-isolation.

The president never misses an opportunity to revile the Iranian government and to talk as if we favor regime change in that country. We have refused to participate in multilateral talks, demanding instead that Europeans conduct negotiations with Iranians, on the grounds that U.S.-Iranian talks would legitimate the Iranian regime. And we're taking the posture that we'll not be part of any quid pro quo. Yet we expect Iranians to make substantial concessions. This is a good illustration of how not to conduct a serious international effort.

What about Iraq?
Our congressional leaders are still inclined to dance around the issue or to find salvation in a formula that calls for American disengagement -- but gradually and without indicating what that means in terms of levels or dates. I'm not sure that's a wise policy. Because once you begin to draw down your troops, it's probably better to remove them rapidly. If you scale down your presence gradually, the reduced numbers are going to be in jeopardy. Moreover, it doesn't have the psychological and political effect of shaking Iraqis into a realization that it is their responsibility to stand on their own feet. We need to scale down our definition of success and realize we're not going to get a "democratic," secular, pro-American Iraq. We're going to get an Iraq that is responsive to Iraqi nationalism and dominated by a combination of Shiites and Kurds with some proportion of Sunnis adjusting to that reality. It will probably be more theocratic in character than we would like to see. But it will be a regime that responds to current political realities. I think we need to bite the bullet and leave sometime in the next year.

Do you think the Iraqi army is going to be ready soon?
I think our course with the Iraqi forces verges on the absurd: It is all about us training them. The question arises: Training them to do what? If it is a matter of knowing how to use a Kalishnikov in order to kill other people, I think most military-aged Iraqis don't need our training. If it is a question of training Iraqis so they behave and act like American soldiers, that's well and good. Except that is not what is needed in the circumstances we will be bequeathing them. What is needed is motivation based on loyalty to the powers that be. That will mean loyalty to various Shiite militias with a clerical connotation and loyalty to the two major Kurdish formations. Plus, perhaps eventually, loyalty to some Sunni militias based on a tribal allegiance. The motivation is not going to be created by American sergeants who are -- quote, unquote -- "training" them how to behave like American soldiers.

What kind of Iraqi army will we see?
The Iraqi army will be a reflection of Iraqi society. The question is: Can there be a political arrangement along major groups in which individual Iraqis owe personal allegiances to different groups? I think so. Iraqis may not like each other that much, but they dislike Americans just as much -- or even more.

Tara McKelvey is a Prospect senior editor.