The Democrats seem unable to come up with a way to lose Iraq without being held responsible for the failure. They must find a way to appease their angry far-Left base -- or, as Rep. David Obey (D-WI) redundantly called them while berating a Marine's mother who asked him to cut off funding for Iraq, the "idiot Liberals." If they don't, both major political parties may find themselves at odds with their own main supporters, for different reasons. That ought to make the 2008 elections interesting, to say the least.

First, those wanting to lose tried to pass a "non-binding," or pointless, resolution voicing their non-support for General Petraeus' plan to crack down on Baghdad violence with additional troops. Oddly, the Democrats came up with this plan right after the Senate overwhelmingly confirmed Petraeus as overall commander of US forces in Iraq. Even if it had passed, the resolution would have had no effect whatsoever aside from making a show of telling our troops (and enemy forces) that Congress is pushing for their failure. That strategy petered out as the news from Iraq began to indicate that the "surge," as it was called, was already showing positive results... before most of the additional forces even arrived.

Democrats tried implementing Representative John Murtha's (D-PA) "slow bleed" strategy that would have placed heavy conditions on anything or anyone sent to Iraq -- and would have left our troops without vital supplies and reinforcements. That plan was sunk when Murtha openly crowed, "They won't be able to continue. They won't be able to do the deployment. They won't have the equipment, they don't have the training and they won't be able to do the work." Even some of his fellow Democrats cringed to hear Murtha place himself at odds with our own military, and the "slow bleed" plan bled out. Perhaps they merely shrunk from hearing their party's true position expressed so unambiguously.

By mid-February, the Iraqi Army reported that terror operations in Baghdad had dropped by 80 percent. Closed shops had re-opened, markets were once again crowded and displaced families were returning to their homes. Insurgent leader Moqtada al-Sadr left the country, the Iraqi government stopped protecting insurgents, and raids netted leaders as well as men and materials that had been used to attack innocent civilians daily. Though it's early yet, these signs are very promising. Unless, of course, you need the American effort to fail in order to garner political power.

Next, Democrat Senators Carl Levin (MI) and Joe Biden (DE) tried to rewrite the 2002 Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq to add provisions specifying that US forces in Iraq could only fight al-Qaeda. They seemed to want a return to the strict rules of engagement under which American forces must wait until they are fired upon, then must positively identify the shooter(s) before returning fire. It's not clear how the Democrats planned to force al-Qaeda members to wear uniforms or badges to make such identification possible. This plan didn't fail so much as just fade away.

Others, like Senator Joe Biden (D-DE), argue that the terms of the war have been fulfilled, and so America must withdraw from Iraq, even if Iran and al-Qaeda would dominate the region as a result. But the Authorization referenced the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act, which made it the aim of America's foreign policy to "support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime." Until that democratic government has stabilised -- meaning, among other things, that it can control its borders and police its own cities effectively, and has undergone at least two peaceful transitions of power through free elections -- the job is nowhere near complete.

Meanwhile, American deaths in Iraq are down 60%. Sunni/Shi'a cooperation is evident even in violence-torn Fallujah. The surest evidence of this is that most media outlets have abandoned the "daily death count" once mournfully inserted into every news story even remotely related to Iraq -- especially if the story contained good news. The Democrats are growing desperate to force a loss in Iraq before "Bush" can win -- as though it's all merely part of their endless political game. Yet even as House Democrats passed yet another resolution that would force America to abandon Iraq (attached to a military appropriations bill), Republicans defeated the Senate version. And the games continue.

Another plan popular among Democrats is to impose a series of "benchmarks" upon the Iraqi government that must be met in order for US troops to remain in Iraq. But if the Iraqi government is unable to meet those benchmarks, isn't that a sign that they need more help from us, not less? If the Iraqis do meet them, doesn't that mean the long-term plan to reduce violence and stabilise the government is beginning to work?

Most Democrats want to implement a withdrawal sometime before the 2008 elections, so they can attribute the resultant chaos and violence to President Bush... who wants to stay and finish the job regardless of political considerations. From now until November 2008, the Democrats will push bill after bill after bill, all desperately seeking failure in new and creative ways, disguised as concern for the troops or fiscal scruples. There's something fundamentally dark and disturbing about one of America's two main political parties investing their future so deeply in losing a war that they can't allow victory under any circumstances.

The only thing that's becoming clearer by the day is that America's main opponent in Iraq is really in Washington DC.