The challenge faced by the US Democrats on Iraq is the same as the dilemma the party faces in the presidential primaries. Press all the right anti-war buttons for the rank and file and they are in danger of providing lethal ammunition for the Republicans in the wider electorate. Despite the war's unpopularity no politician wants it said he is letting the boys down while they are in harm's way.
Nevertheless, yesterday the House of Representatives backed by a substantial majority, including a significant number of Republicans, a short, non-binding resolution opposing the deployment of more troops, while affirming Congress's support for "the members of the United States Armed Forces who are serving ... bravely and honourably in Iraq." It was a notably rare rebuke for a war-time leader on an issue which brought out real passion. During the first three days of debate, 343 out of the 434 members spoke. Meanwhile, Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, was battling with procedural problems to convene a rare Saturday session to debate the issue.
"Now comes the hard part," as the LA Times put its yesterday. Where next? The Democratic leadership is exploring means of ratcheting up pressure in a binding form. Anti-war advocates want to set a firm target date for a complete withdrawal. But some centrist Democrats, especially those in Republican-leaning constituencies, are worried that direct steps to limit President Bush's war powers are fraught with political peril.
By making extra Iraq funding conditional on a series of welfare provisions for the troops, the Democrats hope to apply increasing pressure without a backlash from the 60 per cent that polls show are against cutting off funds to the army on the ground. The new leader of the House, Nancy Pelosi, has cannily backed requirements that troops be given at least a year's rest between combat deployments, special training in urban warfare, and safety equipment that the military has struggled to provide. And she strongly endorsed binding legislation requiring Mr Bush to seek congressional authorisation before any military strike on Iran. Another resolution will attempt to row back on the authority he was given by Congress to wage war on Iraq.
The Democratic majority has transformed the congressional battlefield. Control of the agenda has passed to Ms Pelosi and her Senate counterpart. But they are entering a legal and constitutional no-man's land. The presidential prerogative to wage war is fiercely contested between president and Congress. The War Powers Resolution passed in 1973 provided procedures for both to participate in decisions to send US forces into hostilities. It came in response to the perception that presidents had assumed more authority than the framers of the constitution had intended and every president since has taken the view that it is an unconstitutional infringement of the president's authority. The crucial battle being joined now between executive and legislature may well end up before the Supreme Court.