By John M. Donnelly, CQ Staff

Chastened by their failure to change President Bush’s Iraq War policies last year, anti-war Democrats are pondering a shift in their strategy.

Many Democrats expect a concentration on measures that would limit Bush’s war policies, rather than demand troop withdrawals, and fewer votes overall on the war this election year. In addition to guaranteeing a congressional role in any U.S.-Iraq security accord, these policy targets range from tightening controls over private contractors to ensuring minimum amount of rest and readiness for deploying troops, ideas that also were debated last year and drew some Republican support.

“I don’t think the passion of any of us who are against the war has decreased at all,” said Jim McGovern of Massachusetts, a leader among anti-war Democrats in the House.

But he added that many Democrats were now trying “to get behind what we think can be passed. . . . Those of us who want this war to end are interested in concrete votes vs. engaging in votes just for the sake of therapy. It’s not the quantity, it’s the quality I’m interested in.”

Not all Democrats are on the same page over the more limited anti-war legislative strategy. Some, such as Barbara Lee of California and John P. Murtha of Pennsylvania, say they will continue pushing for measures that include withdrawal timelines.

“Whether there are more votes or less votes on timelines, that’s not the issue,” said Lee, a leader of the party’s progressive wing, which comprises roughly one-third of the Democratic Caucus. “The issue is, are we moving the Congress in a direction where the administration has to once again be confronted? It’s important to have a host of bills.”

How party leaders approach the issue is still taking shape. House Democrats begin a three-day retreat on Jan. 30 in Williamsburg, Va., where the party’s anti-war strategy is likely to be discussed.

A Changed Political Landscape

Behind the push within the party to shift its anti-war strategy are several new factors that have changed the political landscape. With Bush’s so-called surge strategy reducing U.S. casualties in Iraq, the domestic economy has now eclipsed the war as the top issue on voters’ minds. As a result, many Democrats are feeling somewhat less pressure to bring the troops home.

At the same time, anti-war activist groups have decided that last year’s Democratic approach of repeatedly forcing votes for withdrawal that ultimately failed in the Senate — where Republicans have the numbers to block any such legislation — is no longer viable. This year, they want to hold fewer such votes, placing greater emphasis on bills that stand a better chance of passing.

“I think people will keep pushing for [Iraq policy changes], but not multiple votes, that’s the difference,” said John Isaacs, executive director of the Council for a Livable World, one of the anti-war groups.

Against that backdrop, Republicans now openly mock the Democrats as political eunuchs on the Iraq War.

“Democratic leaders have gone from calling for Iraq votes every week to refusing to say when they will schedule another,” said Kevin Smith, spokesman for Minority Leader John A. Boehner , R-Ohio.

Policy Measures Expected Soon

With a war funding supplemental not expected to see action until this spring, Democrats have a few months before they take up any Iraq-related spending legislation.

But policy-related legislation could come up sooner. One of the first issues on the agenda is a broad bilateral agreement now being negotiated on future political, economic and security relations between the United States and Iraq, including the status of U.S. forces in that country. The White House wants to conclude the accord by July as an executive agreement that would deny Congress a say. It would take effect in 2009 for an undetermined number of years.

Democrats are demanding a role for Congress in a final accord. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York introduced a bill (S 2426) in December that would effectively require the White House to submit any agreement to the Senate as a treaty for ratification. In the House, Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut filed a similar measure (HR 4959) on Jan. 15.

Also possible are measures that would strengthen oversight of war contractors and require the Pentagon to report to Congress on any plans to redeploy troops. There are also bills that would reduce the mission of U.S. troops in Iraq to training Iraqi security forces, fighting terrorists and protecting U.S. personnel. Additional Democratic priorities include measures to help veterans, especially those wounded in battle, and military families in general, aides said.

In advance of the party retreat, Murtha, chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense, vowed to reprise many of his assaults on Bush’s war policy, suggesting that the Democrats’ discussion of their strategy was likely to be contentious.

Last year, Murtha wrote bills that would have set a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, required more time at home for troops between deployments and banned torture of detainees. If those fail again this year, he said, Congress will turn to addressing the training, equipment and health care shortfalls facing the military in the United States.

“We have to continue to force the administration to recognize the reality of the problems we have in the Army back at home,” he said.

Josh Rogin contributed to this story.