After months of failure to strike any accord on changing course in Iraq, Americans must acknowledge congressional agreement on one point: Democrats and Republicans want to see movement on bringing the war to an end.

A redeployment bill co-sponsored by Democratic Reps. Neil Abercrombie of Hawai'i and John Tanner of Tennessee that passed the House overwhelmingly Tuesday is a measured first step. It is by no means cause for a full-scale celebration. But it marks movement, nonetheless, in what has become a depressingly difficult effort to chart a different course in Iraq.

The bill, which compels the president to submit detailed plans — without setting a deadline — for withdrawing troops from Iraq, at least provides a firm starting point.

Of course, there's the inevitable flurry of disclaimers. Republicans underscored that there's no date certain and nothing to force the Bush administration to carry out whatever plan they submit (first one due in 60 days).

Most of the 30 Democrats who opposed the bill are hard-liners who say the House should push relentlessly for a "date certain," and even some who voted for it voiced disappointment at having to settle.

"I don't think anybody likes it," said Rep. Tim Ryan, D-Ohio. "But it does paint an important picture: Can we at least get a plan on the table?"

The Senate, resistant to any Iraq policy stripped of a deadline, had better conduct a reality check and endorse a similar measure.

The Pentagon surely has been doing contingency planning without this prod from Capitol Hill. But compelling a release of those plans at least will force the administration to publicly detail the manpower and equipment needed for its new missions — and face the glaring fact that our military has pressing commitments to meet elsewhere in the world.