Sometimes defeat comes wrapped in "a surprise victory," which is how the Washington Post described Senate Democrats' "bid to force President Bush to end the Iraq war, turning back a Republican amendment that would have struck a troop withdrawal plan from emergency military funding legislation."
Furthermore, and less speculative than defeat wrapped in victory, any time the modern GOP appears to be acting reasonably -- such as not filibustering the Democratic funding-plus-withdrawal plan, whose "language was nearly identical to that of a Senate resolution rejected 50 to 48 two weeks ago" -- then it probably has something colossally nasty up its sleeve.
In short, the recent Democratic "victories" -- whether labeled minor, major, or surprising -- would seem, when all is said and done, to be the product of a rope-a-dope strategy.
The opposing view, which has emerged as near-prevailing wisdom, is that Congressional Republicans have thrown the White House from their train; saying, in effect, the war is Bush's problem and they won't be weighted down by this unpopular, uncooperative administration any longer.
I don't buy it. However embattled and besieged it may now be, the GOP understands that solidarity has always been its singular key to success. A monolithic mindset -- conceived, xeroxed and disseminated by its strategic Machiavellis -- has for decades managed to trump internally independent thought and action for the simple reason that solidarity has repeatedly proved itself. Which is to say it has been, by and large, electorally successful. The alternative -- the Democratic version of party politics, which is to say, the herding of cats -- speaks for itself.
The Post article went on to report that "Democratic leaders think [Tuesday's] 50 to 48 victory greatly strengthens their negotiating position as they prepare to face down a White House that yesterday reiterated its threat of a presidential veto."
A veto, it should be added, that for the White House and supposedly demoralized GOP comes with the happy "So what?" of insurmountability. V-e-t-o doesn't normally spell victory, and v-e-t-o p-r-o-o-f, in this instance, likely spells trouble for you know who.
Knowing that the war's funding is inevitable, Democrats will divide and desert their present unity in the post-veto phase. Congressional Republicans, on the other hand, will hang together -- funding, yes; withdrawal date, no -- giving the appearance of principled and consistent unity.
Meanwhile the White House will be the one declaring victory -- naturally "in support of our troops," no matter how many must die to affirm that support.
From now through 2008 the president and his still-enabling Congressional minions will demagogue the Democrats into scorn and humiliation. How dare they attempt to "micromanage" our brave boys. Sadly, the public's enthusiasm for this sort of balderdash is all too durable and easily rekindled.
And the Democrats, having finally refinanced the war, will project more than just the appearance of weakness, division and rudderlessness. For they will be, in striking fact, weakened, divided and rudderless.
So, a "surprise victory" for the Dems? I'd wager their real and biggest surprise is yet to come, however much I may earnestly hope I'm wrong.