For a smart analysis of what Congress' approval of a timetable for withdrawal means politically, you can't do much better than John Fortier in the Hill yesterday.

The game of chicken has begun. All previous efforts to express dissatisfaction with the war mean nothing. The real political game is the Iraq supplemental. If it is vetoed or killed in the Senate, someone will be blamed: Republicans for stopping it or Democrats for connecting it to a troop withdrawal. [snip]

In the end, Democrats are not likely to prevail against President Bush in a veto fight. After all of the political combat, the supplemental that will eventually pass into law will not have a definite date for withdrawal; it may have a recommended timetable, benchmarks, and words of disapproval, but it will not absolutely force the president's hand.

For a different perspective read the transcript of MSNBC's "Scarborough Country" from Tuesday night, which featured a lively debate between Pat Buchanan on one side and Craig Crawford of Congressional Quarterly and Nico Pitney of the Center for American Progress on the other.

Crawford and Pitney took the position that the president's unpopularity combined with a unified Democratic front will eventually force the administration to give in to Congress' demands for a timetable to withdraw, which led to the following exchange:

BUCHANAN: Don't be silly about politics. They're [Democrats] going to give him [Bush] the money, are you kidding? They're going to deny him the hundred billion dollars? They're going to give him the money in the end.

PITNEY: I don't think -- I don't think you're wrong there. But I think they're going to get assurances from him. They're going to get, you know, exceptions from him.

BUCHANAN: Why?

PITNEY: And there's no question about that, Because they have the power. And not only that, they have the political power because the country supports them on this...

(CROSSTALK)

BUCHANAN: But you are wrong. After this goes through and they've had their vote on the binding resolution, the non-binding resolution, then they're going to be told, You have lost on those. Now give me the money. And when Pelosi takes that to the floor, her party will split right in half. Republicans will vote almost unanimously for the money, and a number of Democrats will support it. It is the Democratic Party that will be split then. They are being set up for this hit.

Needless to say, Buchanan is entirely correct. The Democratic leadership did indeed manage to corral their members and pass timetables for withdrawal, but only with the barest of majorities in both chambers (218 in the House and 50 in the Senate). How likely is it that Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid would be able to hold even those bare majorities together for a protracted game of chicken, to use Fortier's apt phrase?

Keep in mind as well that in relatively short order the matter of funding the troops will supplant timetables and deadlines. Defense Secretary Robert Gates has said he needs the money by April 15 (and no later than May 15), after which point disastrous consequences for lack of funds will begin to emerge. These include:
"curtailing and suspending home station training for Reserve and Guard units," "slowing the training of units slated to deploy next to Iraq and Afghanistan," "cutting the funding for the upgrade or renovation of barracks and other facilities that support quality of life for troops and their families," and "stopping the repair of equipment necessary to support pre-deployment training," according to the New York Sun.

The one development that could mitigate the perception that the Democrats were deliberately withholding funds from the troops would be a worsening of the situation in Iraq. But, again, passing the supplemental to fund the troops has to occur in the next several weeks, a condition which overwhelmingly favors President Bush. Barring a cataclysmic event in Iraq in the next three or four weeks, it will be Democrats, not Republicans, struggling to keep members in line.

One must assume, however, that the Democrats know all this, despite Crawford's and Pitney's best efforts, which raises the possibility that perhaps they have no intention of playing chicken with the commander in chief. Of course, they would hold out for a couple weeks or so, but ultimately Democrats know the public would not tolerate defunding the troops. As Buchanan said, the Democrats have had their "inning" -- their headlines, so to speak. Americans know full well where they stand. And so when Pelosi and Reid finally do give the president his funding bill without conditions or timetables, they will go before the cameras and tell the American people that although they tried to bring an end to the war, the welfare of the troops must take precedence. That at least is a far more effective political strategy than trying to overcome a presidential veto with votes they don't have.

So whether the game of chicken is real or feigned, there will be no timetable for withdrawal. The surge will continue.