The 'let's lose now' caucus.

SAY at least this for the Democrats: They are beginning to find the courage of their profoundly mistaken convictions. They have moved from pretending that a nonbinding resolution against sending additional troops into Baghdad and Anbar Province is a serious blow against the war in Iraq to more strenuous attempts to handicap the prosecution of our fight there.

The House Appropriations Committee is set to take up a bill that would authorize $120 billion in additional spending to cover--among other things--the Iraq surge. Speaker Pelosi has known all along that refusing to fund the surge would be a political mistake, since it would open her Democrats to charges of defunding troops in the field. At the same time, her liberal base--and much of her House majority--wants the war stopped, now. The bill tries to keep them happy by setting deadlines for troop withdrawals. President Bush would be told to certify in July, and then again in October, that the Iraqi government had met certain political and military benchmarks. The bill calls for withdrawing U.S. troops within 180 days if these benchmarks aren't met (although Bush could waive them), and by September of 2008 no matter what. Senate Democrats, meanwhile, are working on a resolution that would call for withdrawal by March of 2008.

None of this goes as far as John Murtha's proposal for readiness requirements that would keep troops from deploying to Iraq, but it's still a brazen attempt by the legislature to occupy executive territory. Congress hasn't the power---and was not intended---to supervise the execution of military objectives. It can cut off funding, and the House bill inches in that direction. Yet it would not actually exercise Congress's power of the purse, since any actual defunding would require further legislation.

The bill shows the emptiness of Pelosi's claim that Democrats support U.S. troops even as they oppose the war. The message is: We don't believe you should be there; we don't believe you can win (even as the surge shows early signs of progress); so be warned that we'll pull the rug out from under you as soon as we can get away with it. Trying to avoid giving this impression, Pelosi has filled the bill with billions for veterans' health care, new armored vehicles, and military operations in Afghanistan. These gestures are on the order of buying a man a nice dinner after you have burned down his house.

Pelosi's leftward lurch might backfire. Moderate House Democrats---many of whom won election in conservative districts---are not ready to declare Iraq a failure and give up. Pelosi may not be able to bring them together with the House's unreformed liberals. If so, the bill will be defeated, and Pelosi will have succeeded only in alienating the moderate voters who delivered her speakership last fall. President Bush has promised to veto the bill if it reaches his desk. This would be a risk, since doing so might leave him without funds to fight the war; but the "let's lose now" caucus is probably not big enough---particularly in the Senate---to force that choice upon him.

Regardless of the outcome, what cannot be doubted now is that the Democrats are the party of defeat in Iraq. They think the war is lost and are determined to block any effort to prove otherwise on the ground. We believe that the war is still worth trying to win, and that defeat would have long-lasting and dire strategic consequences. But we're glad the public is getting to see the new majority's true colors.