For those who forecast that last year’s Democratic takeover of Congress portended the end of the Iraq war, 2007 has been a profoundly disappointing year. Bush’s performance on Iraq and many other issues has left him as the weakest incumbent president since Watergate-tainted Richard Nixon. But amazingly, and despite paying a steep price in the court of public opinion, Republicans have largely remained loyal to the president on Iraq and congressional Democrats have repeatedly failed to garner the votes necessary to alter course, much less stop the war.

It was assumed Bush would be restrained by a reinvigorated, opposition-controlled Congress. But that has not happened. Rather than withdrawing forces from Iraq, Bush has increased troop levels. Rather than implementing a plan to extract the United States from the region through a combination of Iraqi reforms and diplomacy, Bush has indicated that responsibility for an exit strategy lies with his successor. Rather than engaging in meaningful dialogue with Syria and Iran, the Bush administration continues to isolate and pressure its two regional rivals. And, Congress has continued to fund the war.

For the United States, the real battle over Iraq today is the “war on the war” which pits the president and his dwindling band of supporters against the Democrats and most Americans, who oppose the war. Democrats win by ending the war, but Bush wins by not losing — having the war end on his watch. To win, Democrats must build a broad, bipartisan coalition to stop the war through legislative action. President Bush simply must avoid having too many of his supporters defect. Thus, the White House has used a variety of techniques — delay, the façade of success, stark warnings — to sustain the support of key Republicans, many of whom have serious reservations about the president’s policy.

The frontline of the war on the war is the Senate, which has failed repeatedly to cut funding for military operations or demanding US troop withdrawals. These defeats were not entirely unexpected. First, the Democratic hold on the Senate is tenuous — a 50-49 majority with one independent, Joe Lieberman, who supports Bush on Iraq. Second, blocking funding for troops engaged in battle is a dangerous move from a policy perspective, not to mention politically risky.

And finally, no matter how unpopular a war, few Americans are willing to concede defeat by withdrawing troops without some semblance of victory or closure. It should be recalled that the exit from Vietnam was made only after Nixon’s announcement of “peace with honor” and unveiling of the “Vietnamization” plan that turned over military responsibility to South Vietnam.

But what was clearly expected of the Democrats was to work with moderate Republicans to win minor victories, which, though not stopping the war, at least would change specific policies, erode the president’s base of support within his party, and eventually require the president to pursue a different course.

On Wednesday, after months of trying and failing to hit a legislative “home run” by forcing the president to exit Iraq, Senate leaders attempted to pass a more modest Iraqi proposal. But once again Democrats failed to muster enough support. The legislation — sponsored by Sen. Jim Webb (Democrat-Virginia) — would have forced the Pentagon to reassess troop levels by requiring troops to be granted extended home leaves after serving in Iraq. Currently, because so many US troops are tied down in Iraq and Afghanistan, soldiers who have already served in combat are being redeployed within months of returning home. Though the measure garnered a majority, 56-44, 60 votes were needed for passage.

The Senate may next debate a bipartisan resolution sponsored by Senators Lamar Alexander (Republican-Tennessee) and Ken Salazar (Democrat-Colorado), which calls for implementation of the Iraq Study Group Report. But even if passed, it is unclear whether the legislation would be legally binding or a toothless resolution expressing congressional opinion. If passed and legally binding, it will likely be vetoed by the president.

In June, it appeared the president was losing control over Iraq policy. While he won a lengthy struggle with Congress over war funding, his victory was hollow.

Congress indicated its unwillingness to continue to back the president’s policy and several key Republicans were publicly considering defecting lest the situation in Iraq improve drastically. But the passage of the war-funding bill resulted in a legislative cease-fire until the recent testimony of Gen. David Petreaus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker. The duo’s message of patience at least momentarily halted momentum to end the war quickly. Today Congress appears impotent — displeased with the president, but unable to change his policy.

George W. Bush has often compared himself to Harry Truman, but fellow Texan Lyndon Johnson bears a closer resemblance. For Johnson’s presidency is remembered for getting the US involved in an unwinnable war and slavishly compounding the error by prolonging the inevitable withdrawal of US forces — vainly attempting not to “lose” the war that defined him. Bush seems to understand he can’t win in Iraq, but he adamantly refuses to lose it on his watch. Unless the Democrats can come up with a better political strategy, he will leave his successor with the unenviable task of withdrawing the troops from Iraq.

— David Dumke is a political analyst and principal of the MidAmr Group. E-mail: [email protected].