By Bob Morgan, Jr.

This is written on September 11, exactly six years after a day like no other. We will, of course, never forget what we were doing that day nor will we forget those who lost their lives.

Despite the vivid recollections of 9/11, much has happened in the six years since the towers fell: the war in Afghanistan, the beginning of the war in Iraq and the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, the reelection of President Bush, the deteriorating situation in Iraq in 2005-06, the Democratic Congressional victory in 2006, the "surge" in 2007. And, sadly, a bitterly divided, highly partisan mood in much of the country, a mood exacerbated by the slow progress in Iraq.

I suspect that the beginnings of a post 9/11, post Iraq War world may now be on the horizon, with at least some degree of consensus on foreign policy and a desire to focus on other concerns.

In some ways, the testimony of General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker this week point to the direction that the debate about Iraq is taking. Neither the Mr. Patraeus nor Mr. Ryan are saying that things are rosy in Iraq, or that the central government is doing a good job in reuniting the various factions and they report only slow progress in improving the level of Iraqi security forces. General Petraeus's prescription is a withdrawal of the additional 30,000 troops in the surge by the summer and consideration of further cuts in the spring. However, he warns strongly that a more abrupt pullout would risk very negative consequences.

While Democrats are taking strong issue with the testimony, and continue to seek legislation that will impose a pullout deadline, it seems clear that they lack the votes in Congress to win on this issue. In fact, despite their hard line rhetoric, they have a number of points of agreement with General Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan.

Like Mr. Petraeus and Mr. Ryan, Democrats agree that the situation in Iraq is difficult at best. In addition, the Democrats agree that the United States has to begin a pullout strategy even if conditions in Iraq are still less than ideal. Finally, many Democrats, including Hillary Clinton, appear to understand that there will be a need for some United States military presence in Iraq in the next administration.

My guess is that the 2008 general election campaign will not center around Iraq nearly as much as did the 2006, 2004 or 2002 campaigns. I suspect that that two candidates will have only relatively minor differences on the speed and scope of a United States withdrawal, with the Democratic candidate (presumably Ms. Clinton) not desiring to feed the perception that her party has been taken over by pacifists and the Republican candidate (who knows?) not wishing to tie himself too closely to Mr. Bush's policies. We will be hearing considerably more about health care, immigration and mortgages in the United States and quite a bit less about sectarian tensions in Baghdad.

While the United States has far too much global responsibility to enter into a period of isolationism, few will mourn the end of the present contentious era and the dawning of a politics more based on consensus and accommodation.