I think it's simply too much to ask from any body such Congress or leading political actors to formula any specific tactical type plans that would answer: "what do we do in regards to the current situation in Iraq".

This is mostly an issue for miltary experts, Pentagon and more importantly those actual commanders on the ground in Iraq to resolve and they need the flexiblity to try tactics and be able to change these if you aren't getting the results envisioned. And as far providing direction in this, the Commander in Cheif's function is to get these various input and make decisions regarding them. [though certainly the Congress plays a role in this.]

The democrats should trying to hammer together some sort of general policy of how America will address Iran [and countries like it] which have desire to get nuclear weapons. Or how should we address such countries as Sudan and our policy to prevent genocide.

Of course there is the political problem with making such general policy and that is the President might actually do what you are asking him/her to do.

"The policy to remove Saddam Hussein was not left over from the first Bush administration, but, rather, unfinished business from the Clinton administration. Upon entering office in January of 2001, President Bush inherited from the Clinton administration a policy of regime change. That policy was based upon the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act (P.L. 105-338), which stated, “It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime.” This policy was unanimously approved by the Senate and strongly supported by the Clinton administration.

Not two months after he signed the Iraq Liberation Act into law, President Clinton delivered an address to the nation explaining his decision to order air strikes against Iraqi military targets. He discussed the potential long-term threat posed by Saddam Hussein, stating,

“The hard fact is that so long as Saddam Hussein remains in power, he threatens the well- being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world. The best way to end that threat once and for all is with the new Iraqi government, a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people.

“. . . Heavy as they are, the costs of inaction must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors; he will make war on his own people. And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them.” (Emphasis added)"
http://www.cfr.org/publication.html?id=6861

Now, it should be kept in mind that if the Democrats do actually make policy decisions in present time in regard to Iran or Sudan, there is the potential political problem that the president entering office in 2009 might actually follow a course that is directed by such policy.

The upside in regard to having policy of a regime in Iraq is that in a decade or so, the Democrats can claim political credit for starting the process that evenually led to a free and prosperous Iraq. They might be so generous at that time as to concede that President Bush helped a little bit.