Harry Reid’s secret weapon to end the war was the wrath of constituents. In July, after he failed to move Republicans to support a strict deadline to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq, the Senate majority leader pulled the trigger, announcing he would suspend voting on several compromise measures until September and let Republicans go home to face the public.

The weapon turned out to be an IED – an improbable expectations device. By late August it was Reid who said he was ready to compromise with Republicans. Instead of angry constituents, as some polls suggested, Congress found a public much more sophisticated about American interests and responsibilities in Iraq.

Maine was no different. A reporter from the Portland Press Herald followed Sen. Susan Collins and Rep. Tom Allen around a couple of weeks ago and reported, “Most of the 20 people who were questioned during swings through six towns in Cumberland and Sagadahoc counties disapproved of Allen’s call for an exit deadline.” The polls may say a large majority of the public wants U.S. troops home, but generally withdrawal is not the way they want it done. As Collins said, “People understand that there are dire consequences if we completely withdraw.”

Now, after congressional Democrats got to make their best case against the Iraq war to two people trying to win it, Gen. David Petraeus and U.S. ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker have turned even the disdained compromises of July into a reach for the majority party.

Of course Iraq is in many ways a disaster, with troops serving long tours, the number of deaths rising daily, billions of tax dollars spent and no solid signs of national reconciliation from an Iraqi government that would serve well by allowing itself to be replaced. For those listening closely, Petraeus and Crocker said as much, though not in those words. Instead, they said they needed time, years more than the four and a half the United States already has spent in Iraq. They will push the war out beyond the administration of George Bush and burden the next president with the mess of withdrawing troops.

But do members of Congress think it could have been otherwise? That the dysfunctional Iraqi government would pass milestone legislation to close deep ethnic and sectarian divides at a hundred times the speed our own Congress could pass language on, say, improving gas-mileage performance?

When former Secretary of State Colin Powell offered his maxim “you break it, you own it” on Iraq, it appeared he was talking about a moral responsibility not to abandon Iraqi citizens to chaos. But there is a practical meaning as well. Part of the price the United States accepted in going to war was that it would look after U.S. interests when the balance of power in the region had been tilted by the invasion. The encroachment of Iran, the attraction of terrorist gangs, the need for a stable oil supply, and the effect on the Israeli-Palestinian situation means the United States cannot walk away from Iraq without causing itself lasting damage. The demands for hard and fast withdrawal deadlines are political fiction.

Sen. Olympia Snowe, just before she left this week on her third trip to Iraq, said, “This isn’t about whether we withdraw or not. That mischaracterizes the debate. It’s widely accepted troops will remain in Iraq after a withdrawal, and it’s important to be clear we will continue the mission against al-Qaida in Iraq, but there will be a different mission.”

It may not be widely accepted by everyone, including those protesting the Petraeus-Crocker hearings, but it should be clear to Congress. The United States is going to be in Iraq for a long time, a legacy that will define the Bush administration. But Congress can do a lot to change the mission now by emphasizing training and border protection, reducing the number of troops, demanding regional conferences that produce substantial agreements and warning the Iraqi government the United States will continue to focus on its own interests unless Iraq demonstrates a determination to achieve national reconciliation.

For Republicans, that means rejecting the president’s plans as inadequate. For Democrats, it means telling their base that complete withdrawal is a worse option than staying under changed circumstances.

Both parties this week used a dictionary’s worth of praise to describe the bravery and competence of the U.S. troops in Iraq. But they’d be honoring the troops even more if they would save their words and act together to meet their shared ideals. They would find the public already there.

Todd Benoit is the editorial page editor of the Bangor Daily News. Readers may contact him at tbenoit@bangordailynews.net.