You wouldn't know it from the mainline media coverage, but blueprints are readily available for a careful and complete U.S. withdrawal from Iraq.

In the crossfire of conventional wisdom from big media outlets and the politicians with the most clout in Washington, news watchers have seen little illumination of the actual options for swiftly removing all American forces. Iraq, we're told endlessly, needs help from the U.S. military in order to create a livable future.

But last month, a report emerged from the Task Force for a Responsible Withdrawal from Iraq. After a meeting in March at Harvard University's Weatherhead Center for International Affairs, a team of policy analysts rolled up their sleeves and assembled the report.

Rep. James P. McGovern, a Democrat from Massachusetts, has long advocated an end to the occupation of Iraq. "But I always knew that the removal of U.S. military forces was only part of the picture, and not all that would be required," he writes in the report's preface. And he raises a key question: "What else does the United States need to be doing so that our military departure is done in a way that lessens the risk of a bloodbath and regional chaos?"

The report — titled "The Necessary Steps for a Responsible Withdrawal from Iraq" — goes a long way toward providing the essential answers. McGovern calls it "one of the most comprehensive efforts that I have seen so far to address the diplomatic, economic and political efforts that should accompany a U.S. military withdrawal from Iraq."

Two years ago, in the media and politics of the United States, momentum was building for a pullout. The results of midterm elections in November 2006 were clear messages that defenders of the Iraq war were in political retreat. But the stay-the-course spinners staged a massive counteroffensive, insisting that withdrawal was unthinkable and the war had to be won.

"The surge" followed, along with tremendous violence from the Pentagon's ground and air power in Iraq. As media consumers, we saw little real reportage about what was actually going on. Journalistic cliches trumped human terms. The high-decibel reporting on Iraq policy came out of Washington echo chambers.

A big theme of the we-can't-leave spin has been the claim that a U.S. military withdrawal will inevitably lead to an upsurge of bloodshed. In part, that messaging has been effective because it fails to acknowledge just how horrific the status quo in Iraq continues to be. But another component of the propaganda is the assumption that sensible alternatives to continued occupation just don't exist.

The new report says otherwise. For instance, it urges the U.S. government to:

— "signal that all of Iraq's neighbors, including Syria and Iran, will henceforth be treated as partners in promoting stability,"

— "take vigorous diplomatic steps to stem the flow of arms and foreign fighters feeding the civil war and communal violence,"

— "immediately re-engage Syria and Iran in non-coercive 'give-and-take' diplomacy addressing bilateral issues,"

— "in anticipation that a blue-helmeted peacekeeping force will be needed and requested by Iraq when the U.S. withdraws, support the UN in organizing and funding it,"

— "cease pressure on Iraq to open up its oil sector and other parts of its economy,"

— "support the UN High Commissioner for refugees in better addressing the plight of Iraqi refugees and internally displaced persons," and

— "donate to an Iraq Development Fund that bankrolls a labor-intensive public works program and helps to fix the broken food rationing system."

But such measures are off the U.S. media's radar screen because of the assumption that withdrawing American troops from Iraq isn't practical. And, according to the insidious spirit of an unfortunate political cliche, appearance is reality.

Norman Solomon's books include "War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death." A documentary film of the same name, based on the book, has been released on home video.

COPYRIGHT 2008 DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.