On 13 September 2007, George W Bush spoke to the people of the United States about Iraq. It was the eighth time the president has delivered a status report on the war and - in indicating that the military "surge" has achieved modest results and that only a few troops can return home - it was his most sombre assessment to date. However, since "Iraqi leaders have asked for an enduring relationship with America", additional troops will only "return on success." Bush thus implied that large numbers of Americans would remain in Iraq throughout the remaining seventeen months of his presidency. His speech presented not an exit strategy but a profession of faith: US troops can "win" in Iraq.

In the face of President George W Bush's unwillingness to change course in Iraq, Democrats in the United States Congress have a choice: capitulate or attempt to stop the war. They've decided to battle Bush for the rest of his presidency. Their endgame strategy sees a win for Democrats no matter what move he makes.

On 17 July 2007, Democrats held a marathon Senate session in an attempt to force a vote on a resolution specifying a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq. This extraordinary proceeding was necessary because the arcane rules of the Senate dictate that voting on any subject requires the approval of a super-majority of Senators. After an all-night debate, Democrats were able to gather only fifty-three of the sixty votes needed for closure. As a result, Iraq policy discussion was postponed for two months amid increasing polarisation in Congress.
Bob Burnett is a writer based in Berkeley, California. He can be reached here Also by Bob Burnett in openDemocracy:

"A liberal foreign policy for the US: ten maxims"(27 February 2007)

"America's choice: imperial vs constitutional rule" (10 May 2007)

"The road not taken: the Iraq Study Group" (21 May 2007)

"Alberto Gonzales's cookery lesson" (30 May 2007)

"Bush's failed freedom agenda" (25 June 2007)

"Bush's Iraqi endgame" (17 July 2007)

The George W Bush administration has in recent years labelled its interventionist foreign policy "the freedom agenda". Although based upon values shared by all Americans - freedom and democracy offer the best alternatives to repression and radicalism - the freedom agenda's focal concept is deeply ideological: capitalism produces democracy. In application, this idea has had dreadful, unintended consequences: it has tarnished the reputation of the United States and soured the appeal of democracy to most of the world.

The United States's latest National Intelligence Estimate (completed in April 2006, and selectively leaked in September) stated that the "war on terror" is failing: the war in Iraq has actually increased the worldwide threat of terrorism. As a result, a cornerstone neo-conservative notion - it's in the world's best interest for the US to act unilaterally whenever it feels it needs to - has been discredited. Nonetheless, a closely related assertion - unfettered capitalism inevitably produces freedom and democracy - has gone unchallenged in the United States. Yet, this notion has also been proven false.