WHO NEEDS WHO FOR WHAT?

WHO NEEDS WHO FOR WHAT? Ron Brownstein's column today is entitled "Bush and Democrats: Enemies who need each other." I assumed he meant in part that Dems are relying on Bush's utter intransigence on Iraq to keep their own caucus united -- a point made yesterday by E.J. Dionne (to whom MoveOn's Tom Matzzie remarked, ""Bush is our worst enemy, and our best ally"). But Brownstein says something else instead:

Bush has the authority to engineer a change of direction in the war. But he lacks the credibility with the public to reestablish consent for his course.

Congressional Democrats, even after their seismic Senate victory Tuesday, ultimately lack the leverage to mandate a new course in Iraq. But they offer Bush his only possibility of rebuilding a public consensus over America's role in the war.

Because neither side can set a sustainable course on its own, their choice is either to continue colliding in polarized confrontations like Tuesday's Senate vote narrowly approving a time limit for withdrawal, or to seek agreement on a strategy for Iraq that a broader coalition in Congress and the country might support.

But for the president to agree to a new strategy in Iraq that the country might support would simply amount to ... victory for the Democratic position.

Brownstein envisions a possible agreement as follows: "A negotiated legislative agreement that links a trial for Bush's troop surge (which is showing some promise) with a concrete agreement from the administration to begin withdrawing forces if the strategy doesn't produce substantial, tangible progress in a reasonable period might serve the political interests of both parties." Leaving aside whether or not the surge has actually been showing promise, for the president to agree concretely to binding congressional Democratic demands for withdrawal if the surge doesn't work in a set period of time would amount to a radical departure for the president and a clear substantive victory for the Democratic opposition. And it's pretty clear that it's absolutely not going to happen. Thus, all that is left to do is "continue colliding in polarized confrontations" for the next two years, forcing Bush to go on record with unpopular vetos and hoping to steadily erode support for continuing the war among Republicans in Congress. As Brownstein says, that's a strategy that may hold political dangers for Democrats, but it holds much greater political danger for Republicans, and at any rate it isn't as if the president has given the Democrats much choice in pursuing it.

--Sam Rosenfeld