Leaders of the U.S. House of Representatives are correct in bringing the Iraq war back into the spotlight. What remains to be seen is whether the congressional debate over funding the war will become a replay of this summer’s political theater, which ended with no change in direction or strategy, or whether lawmakers can agree on a necessary change of course.

The House proposal was passed Wednesday night by 218 to 203, with four Republicans joining 214 Democrats to vote in favor of it. Fifteen Democrats, including Maine’s two representatives, joined 188 Republicans in opposition. Rep. Michael Michaud has long opposed funding for the war without accountability and Rep. Tom Allen opposed the bill because it did not contain a binding deadline for troop withdrawal.

The bill would give President Bush another $50 billion for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. But it would require him to begin troop withdrawals from Iraq within 30 days with a goal of Dec. 15, 2008, for removing all troops except those needed for protection of diplomats and remaining U.S. forces, limited support of Iraqi forces, and counterterrorism operations.

It also would require that members of the reserve, the National Guard and regular forces spend more time at home between rotations to Iraq and that all government personnel obey the Army Field Manual’s prohibition of torture in interrogation of prisoners. That would bar waterboarding, the CIA’s practice of simulated drowning.

President Bush has promised a veto if the bill reaches his desk. But first could come action by the Senate, where Republicans plan to block it and where the Democrats may not even muster a majority.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid have declared that Congress won’t approve any more money for the war unless Mr. Bush agrees to start bringing the troop home.

Similar vows were made this summer, but a bill requiring troop withdrawals failed to win enough support. Democratic leaders then stopped debate on the war and its funding, although it appeared compromise legislation that would have changed the U.S. mission in Iraq to support for Iraqi forces and the withdrawal of some troops had a chance of passage. The same deadlock this time would be a shame.

The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will have a total cost of $3.5 trillion if it goes on until 2017, according to a new congressional report. Yet, some Democrats and most Republicans are reluctant to impose their judgment on the conduct of war even on this unpopular president and even in this increasingly unpopular war. They also know that those who stick with the mistaken war are likely to be thrown out of office.

Congress must get beyond this political posturing and take the overdue step of beginning the reassignment of troops away from an aggressive and costly war to a protective and training stance.