Now that the Democrats have a chance to influence Iraq policy, they ought to reflect on Benjamin Franklin’s warning to the signers of the Declaration of Independence.

“We must all hang together or assuredly we shall all hang separately,” Franklin said, referring to the dangers ahead in confronting Great Britain. That aphorism applies equally well to the situation facing Congress and the White House as they confront the situation in Iraq.

Let there be no mistake. The responsibility for Iraq’s disintegration and ugly violence lies squarely with the Bush White House. Republican leadership – with its fierce partisanship that permitted no input from ideological outsiders – produced this disaster.

Having been treated with disdain for six years, Democrats will be tempted to respond in kind. Already, leading Democrats, like Michigan’s Carl Levin – who will become chairman of the Senate Armed Service Committee – are pushing for a “phased redeployment” of U.S. troops from Iraq in the very near future. “Phased redeployment,” a phrase heard much in the congressional campaign, will supposedly be a top Democratic priority come January. The White House, of course, rejects the idea.

But the election campaign is over, and it’s time for the Democrats to think about the bigger picture. Instead of pushing campaign themes, they should pause and consider whether a bipartisan strategy holds a better chance of avoiding the onrushing Iraq disaster we face.

I realize that bipartisanship provides no magic solutions. But neither does phased redeployment. Now that they have a congressional voice, the Democrats can’t afford to indulge in the kind of wishful thinking that hypnotized Republicans into endless policy mistakes.

Levin says that phased redeployment would force Iraqi leaders to compromise and end their sectarian battles.

The ugly truth is that Iraq’s government is wholly dysfunctional. Its Shiite prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki, is incapable of reining in Shiite militias, and its minority of Sunni cabinet ministers has no control over hard-line Sunni insurgents.

If U.S. troops start a phased redeployment that doesn’t take into consideration these unpleasant facts, Iraq’s civil war will go into overdrive. American troops will be caught in the middle as they exit.

The hard-hearted might conclude that Americans should just let Iraqis have at it, and then deal with the civil war’s victors. But – if Americans just pull out, without any preparation for the aftermath – the Iraqi civil war will last for years and drag in Iraq’s neighbors.

Before rushing to endorse phased withdrawal, wouldn’t it make sense for Democrats to put withdrawal in broader context? Wouldn’t it be wiser to give some more thought to the impact on the entire Mideast region, including our tense relations with Iran?

Wouldn’t it be smarter to wait for the report of the bipartisan Baker Study Group on Iraq, due in December? After all, this group, unlike the Bush White House, has listened to ideas from all sides.

No doubt the temptation to jump the gun and call for quick withdrawal is enticing, especially since the White House has no viable Iraq policy and voters have asked for change. Yet the long-term consequences of complete Iraqi collapse would be so awful that Democrats need to think beyond the results of the elections.

Before leaping to endorse positions they may regret, Democrats should step back, consult with one another and with thoughtful Republicans. They should consider Iraq realities free from ideological blinders.

The Bush team deluded itself about the likely repercussions of its Iraq policy – but that doesn’t mean Democrats can afford to do likewise. Not now.