There is only one positive, forward-looking case a 2008 Democrat candidate can and should make: it is time to get out for the good of all concerned (except of course Islamist terrorists). 
As to how we accomplish that, simple: as soon as is safely possible, risking fewest casualties as we exit.
This is not an exit strategy. It is integral to a policy of advancing democracy, unilaterally if necessary, by any means including armed intervention, where peoples demonstrate by civil action their willingness and intention to overthrow undemocratic regimes.
In keeping with that policy, we should withdraw militarily from Iraq, because by overstaying our time there the good we did is being dissipated and undermined. Now that Saddam is gone. a new government elected, we will continue to be available for material help by way of weaponry, technology, and a small force of advisers. But securing their freedom in the long run is their right and responsibility.
I opposed the this war from the beginning because I thought it would be a massive strategic error to intervene where there was no evidence of an organized effort to overthrow Saddam from within. Yes, we abandoned the Shia as we withdrew from Iraq during the first war, and it was wrong. Saddam should have been removed then and there was plenty of justication for it. 
Our intervention this time was bungled and continues to be because we think we have to ensure some sort of result we can point to with pride. But shouldn't it be the Iraquis who do the pointing with pride? To do so, they must be given the chance, with all the opportunities and risks. Their is no dishonor in their taking up their own struggle. We will help them in any way, but they must realize that our continued presence goes against democratic principle and prospects for success.
By 2008 the American people will be way ready and eager to leave. All they need to vote for a Democrat is to believe that we will really do it. 

Posted at June 3, 2005 2:32 PM in response to The Democrats' Dilemma