KEY POINTS:
On the ground in Iraq, George W. Bush's war may long ago have sunk into an unwinnable morass. But the second week of July 2007 is set to go down as the moment when he started to lose control of Iraq policy-making at home as well.
The beleaguered, hugely unpopular President made yet another defence of his troop 'surge' yesterday. At a public appearance in Ohio , he insisted that troop levels in Iraq "will be decided by our commanders on the ground, not by political figures in Washington, D.C."
"I fully understand that this is a difficult war," he conceded, "It's hard on the American people. But I will once again explain the consequences of failure to the American people."
But as he spoke, Congress was preparing to vote on a host of mainly Democratic amendments on a $650bn ($NZ836bn) Pentagon funding bill.
All of them would to some degree curtail Mr Bush's authority. Now, as Republican defections multiply, for the first time some of them may succeed.
At the end of this week moreover, the White House will deliver an interim report on political and military progress in Iraq, that will show - as headlines and TV pictures every day confirm - that the sectarian violence continues, armed militias flourish, and that the government of Nouri al-Maliki is failing to take the promised steps towards national reconciliation.
The administration contends that the report is a mere snapshot of the situation before the just completed US troop increase has had time to show results. For critics however, the bleak findings merely confirm that US soldiers are trapped where they do not belong, in the middle of a civil war in all but name.
Further fuelling the dissent are new figures yesterday from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, showing the war is now costing a record $10bn a month. Total spending on Iraq is now close to $500bn.
If Afghanistan is included the 'war on terror' has cost over $600bn, little less than Vietnam.
In the meantime US casualties now stand at some 3,650 dead and 25,000 wounded, with May and June especially bloody months.
Speaking in Cleveland, Ohio, Mr Bush sought to rally wavering Republicans by holding out the prospect of troop reductions after the surge, and once again spoke of 'a plan for victory' in Iraq.
But he reiterated, force levels "will be decided by commanders on the ground, not by politicians in Washington DC - a reference to two Senate amendments calling for a withdrawal of combat forces before April 2008.
In May, Mr Bush vetoed one war funding bill that contained such a provision.
This time however it may not be so simple. Forcing his hand is the gathering pace of Republican defections on Capitol Hill. At least 10 Republicans have in varying degrees broken ranks. Were they to vote with the 49 Democrats opposed to the war, the bloc would be close to the 60 votes needed to break a filibuster.
A few more Republican rebels would bring it close to the two thirds majority that overrides a Presidential veto.
In a sign of the adminstration's concern, Robert Gates, the Defence Secretary, cancelled a scheduled visit this week to Latin America in order to lobby key Republicans, and Stephen Hadley, the President's national security adviser, cut short a holiday to go to go to Capitol Hill to implore wobbling Republicans to hold the line.
The administration is pressing them to reserve judgement until September, when General David Petraeus, the top US commander in Iraq, and Ryan Crocker, the US ambassador in Baghdad, will deliver their own report.
But September is fast-forwarding to July. Back home in the their states and districts, Senators and Congressmen have had a first hand taste of public discontent with the war and President Bush - and how identification with either could cost them re-election in 2008.
The real quandary is what it has been ever since Iraq began its descent into anarchy: not so much when to draw down troops, but whether a US pull out, complete with timetable, would not hand victory to Iraqi insurgents, and generate even more chaos than exists already.
The very number of rival amendments underlines the dilemma. One would lengthen periods between deployments in Iraq, amounting to a 'slow bleed' of US troop strength.
Another would force the Bush administration to follow the 2006 recommendations of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, to launch a diplomatic offensive to end the war, and scale back combat operations from 2008.
The proposals also obscure another truth - that whatever happens, a substantial body of US troops will still be in Iraq, whether as combat forces, 'advisers,' or trainers, when President Bush leaves office in January 2009.
Beyond that is the matter of whether the US retains bases in the country after withdrawal, another longer term issue the current political showdown does not touch upon.
"The [September] Petraeus report won't make much difference," said Anthony Cordesman, of the Centre for International and Strategic Studies, a leading Iraq analyst.
"No matter what happens, the only thing that would allow a clear decision would be a disastrous failure."
Even in strictly military terms, success would be slow, he said, while even If the Maliki government did pass reconciliation measures, they would have little impact before 2008 at the earliest.
The lesson from comparable conflicts elsewhere was that an international force would be needed for a decade or more. Mr Cordesman forecast that 10,000 or 15,000 advisers might stay in Iraq on a long term basis.
- THE INDEPENDENT
