The early narrative on the Iraq funding debate is that Democrats “lost” and Bush “won.” Sorry, but I don’t buy that. People need to view this particular skirmish – and its inevitable, entirely-predictable conclusion – through a longer-term lens. If Bush “won,” it’s the most Pyrrhic victory of all time. The Democrats, by contrast, didn’t lose at all – in fact, they will only “lose” if they internalize the “Democrats Lost” narrative that seems to be dominating the perpetually near-sighted chattering classes.

At the outset, I should say that I’m not putting political considerations above war policy. The war is, however, the most important and substantive issue of the day (if not of our generation). And politics (at its highest form) is a debate over these types of substantive issues. So, I think it’s entirely appropriate to discuss the political back-and-forth and the strategies involved – not because this is a game, but because ending or continuing the war will turn on political strategies and elections.

With that in mind, let’s look at the “defeat.” First, Democrats had absolutely no chance of forcing troop withdrawal. None. The votes weren’t there because the margin of control is very slim, and because the Republicans are simply not yet frightened enough to abandon Bush. In addition, a chicken-like shutdown over war funding would, sadly, be blamed on Congress and could single-handedly revive Bush (which is why he refused to budge – he was hoping to trigger a shutdown).