Tomorrow, you may recall, is the fourth anniversary of the “Shock and Awe” campaign beginning with an attack on Baghdad.

The war in Iraq may yet blow up politics as we know it, the way Vietnam did a generation ago. But it hasn’t happened yet, and the reason is Democrats haven’t fashioned a compelling alternative to George W. Bush’s world view.

And unless they do, they could lose again in the 2008 election.

In politics, what candidates don’t say is more important than what they do. Iraq is a prime example. In an interview with The New York Times, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton gave anti-war people a major opening to exploit against her - but the response from her presidential foes was silence.

It’s no wonder Republicans easily turned back Democratic legislation on a troop withdrawal beginning in 120 days. The measure set a goal of March 31, 2008, for the completion of Iraq withdrawal, but was defeated, 50-48, or 12 short of the 60 needed for passage.

Meanwhile, in the House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi and anti-war Democrats prevailed on a near-party line vote on their war funding bill, winning 36-28 in the House Appropriations Committee amid a veto threat and unyielding opposition from GOP opponents.

But Pelosi’s political victory, if the Iraq war spending measure passes the full House, will be limited because other prominent Dems won’t be so bold.

Ever ambitious, Hillary Clinton has spent the years since 9/11 trying to morph herself into a credible military leader from her prominent post in the U.S. Senate.

As with other Democrats, Hillary says she will vote to cut off funding for combat troops in 2008 if, as now seems inevitable, certain benchmarks aren’t met by the Iraqi government.

But, at the same time, she said this week that she envisions keeping a substantial — though she declined to say precisely how substantial — contingent of American troops in strategic spots around Iraq indefinitely.

The stakes are too high, and the risks of Middle East instability too great, to do otherwise, Clinton says. We need to protect the Kurds, contain Iran, guard Israel, keep a lid on Al Qaeda and maintain close watch on the country - even as we give up trying to prevent a full-scale civil war.

In other words, the Iraq war is here to stay.

Follow the link to continue reading in Newsweek …