Republicans are in terrible shape on Iraq. President Bush has totally failed to persuade Americans that his latest plan - adding more than 21,000 more troops - will work. In the latest ABC poll, two-thirds still disapprove of his war policy, and more than half are strongly opposed.

But the Democrats could screw this up. They could allow their far left, virulently anti-war faction to dictate the party's Iraq policy.

Just because most Americans despise this war does not mean they are ready to cut off funds or restrict the president's options as commander-in-chief. If the Democrats go too far, they immediately change the subject from one that favors them - Bush's gross mishandling of the conflict - to far less favorable terrain - their own role in dictating war policy.

There's an old saying in Washington: If you're in on the landing, you have to be in on the takeoff. This is George Bush's war and his policy is headed for a crash. Why should Democrats be wrestling for control of the pilot's chair?

But Democrats should not remain silent. They were elected with a mandate to express opposition to the war, and it's despicable for Vice President Cheney to be arguing that anti-war critics "validate the strategy of al-Qaida."

The Democrats' nonbinding resolution, stating strong and simple opposition to the president's surge policy, commanded clear majorities in both houses. It was an effective way of crystallizing anti-war sentiment and even Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice found it useful.

During her recent trip to Baghdad, she used the resolution to apply pressure on the Iraqi government to make essential political reforms. "I have made clear," she told reporters, "that some of the debate in Washington is, in fact, indicative of the concerns that the American people have about the prospects for success . . . if the Iraqi leadership does not do what it needs to do."

But when Democrats go beyond that resolution, and contemplate writing restrictions into law, they must tread very carefully. Bush has made such a mess of Iraq that there is no good way out. As the Baker-Hamilton commission learned, any alternative policy can easily be ripped apart.

Some Democrats feel they have an obligation to support measures that bring the troops home, or restrict them to noncombat roles, and given the tragedy of this war, their moral case is compelling. But politically, such a move could backfire, and hand the president an excuse to blame others for his failures.

If the Democrats want to win next year they have to oppose the president's war but not take responsibility for it. The last time the party got entranced by an anti- war "folk hero" his name was George McGovern. He lost 49 states.