Sometime in September, if Gen. David Petraeus’ update on the surge in Iraq describes conditions that don’t suggest progress, Congress probably will vote for a timeline to bring back the troops. Those members of Congress who are mindful of their next campaign – all of them – will be tempted to preface that vote with a version of two explanations, depending on where they stood on the war.

Those are “The Iraqis let us down” and “I told you so.” Another choice would be to answer the question “What next?” by building on a comment Al Gore made the other day.

Gore told Bob Herbert of the New York Times that the objective for the United States in Iraq must be “to get our troops out of there as soon as possible while simultaneously observing the moral duty that all of us share – including those of us who opposed this war in the first instance – to remove our troops in a way that doesn’t do further avoidable damage to the people who live there.”

Gore’s comment, I think, expresses what many people, including me, might say if we could compress our hazy, layered opinions into a single sentence. It is clear, nuanced and takes responsibility for the violence unleashed after the U.S. invasion. It doesn’t wallow in the question of whether the nation is winning or losing in Iraq or whether it should be there at all. It points toward a solution. Placing the word “avoidable” in there suggests a terrible reality.

You’d be surprised to find that sort of sentence uttered during a campaign because of a simple oddity of any political system: Campaigns thrive on conflict while legislating rests on comity. The 2008 campaign for the Senate between incumbent Sen. Susan Collins and challenger Rep. Tom Allen will have endless opportunities for conflict on the question of Iraq. Much of that conflict will be about distinctions – about Allen not supporting the 2002 war resolution but voting to fund the war, except more recently, vs. Collins both backing the war resolution and voting to fund the war, except when timelines were placed on the funding. Their mutual rejection of the troop surge won’t make for much of a fight so will be ignored.

Those decisions are telling, but not nearly as important as what happens next in the war, how members of Congress find an end to the fighting and what a departure would look like. What do Collins and Allen think of Gore’s observation?

“I agree with the thrust of the statement,” Collins said in an e-mail, “but would add ‘the people of the region’ to the ‘people who live there.’ A major concern I have about proposals for a rapid and/or immediate withdrawal is that it would plunge the entire region into chaos. Iran and Syria would be likely to enter the conflict (openly) if American troops were to withdraw before the Iraqis can control their borders.”

Allen first took up Gore’s phrase “further avoidable damage,” saying, “That’s why getting this thing wrong at the beginning was such a disaster.” He contrasted Iraq to Bosnia and Rwanda, “conflicts that were or could have been managed, but Iraq is so big and so divided that there is damage that couldn’t be avoided and some that can’t be avoided as we withdraw,” he said. “I think the quote is basically right, but I would emphasize the way to avoid the damage is not a military task but primarily a political and diplomatic task.”

Besides that they more or less agree with Gore’s observation, notice that Collins and Allen both see troop withdrawal as a process that may begin soon but doesn’t conclude immediately. Second, both realize – through their interest in taking into account the wider region or increased diplomacy – that withdrawal is much more than deciding to bring the troops home. Third, from comments they’ve made at other times, each would agree with the other’s modifications.

I wouldn’t think of suggesting Collins and Allen have the same position on Iraq – they don’t. I would point out that if, this fall, the Gore Timeline Act of 2007 were introduced in their respective sides of the Capitol, they are a few small amendments away from voting the same way.

When the campaign moves toward its most divisive stages, voters may find that thought useful.

Todd Benoit is the editorial page editor of the Bangor Daily News. Readers may contact him at tbenoit@bangordailynews.net.