Watching both sides of the Iraq War debate, it’s easy to think that this is just one more election campaign between political partisans playing symbolic games — and not a high-stakes contest about policy in a region where the personal safety and economic security of the American people could be shaped for a generation.

George W. Bush and the newly installed Democratic leaders of Congress are acting as though this is yet another nuanced competition to inch the polls one way or the other, despite the flood of polling showing that about two-thirds of the public has decided the war has become folly. Instead of coming together behind a hard-nosed and bipartisan policy for protecting the country, Bush and the Democrats are giving the public little more than sound bites, empty rhetoric and straw-man arguments that polarize the country.

What was presented in the president’s nationally televised speech last week as something new and concrete — sending 21,500 more troops to Iraq — was little more than a symbolic gesture to appear decisive and in charge. Before he announced it, the ineffectuality of such a minor uptick was clearly confirmed by a resounding chorus of military experts, including the disagreeable generals who had just been replaced because of their opposition to Bush’s new strategy. Even the president’s most ardent supporters on the war counseled that at least 40,000 more troops, possibly many more, would be needed to make any difference.

And the likely Democratic response — a congressional resolution expressing opposition to the so-called surge — would be, by definition, nothing but symbolism. After all, it’s going to be “non-binding.” That is legislative parlance for appearing to do something without running the risk of doing anything substantive.

The purpose of such a resolution is quite telling about the purely political nature of Washington’s Iraq debate. A toothless measure would be aimed mostly at attracting the votes of Republican lawmakers worried about re-election in 2008. Even as Iraq burns and U.S. troops die, those legislators would be most focused on saving their own hides at the ballot box.

Give Sen. Edward M. Kennedy and his like-minded Democratic colleagues credit for trying to put some muscle behind the rhetoric by proposing that Congress assert its constitutional powers and essentially de-fund the war. But nose counters on Capitol Hill see little chance for any approach with teeth that sharp.

And give The Weekly Standard’s William Kristol and other neo-conservatives credit for advocating a massive troop buildup that might actually make a difference. But the president stepped back from that approach, instead choosing a path that’s not as bold as advertised.

In a constitutional democracy that works as this one was designed to work, the Kennedy and Kristol forces would be forced to find common ground. But the leaders above their pay grade are not really talking to one other. They are only talking at one another. As House Speaker Nancy Pelosi noted after a White House meeting with Bush on the afternoon before his speech, the time that she and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid had with the president was only for show. “This was notification, not consultation,” she said.

While true to form, it’s baffling why Bush never sought the counsel of the new congressional leaders, who maybe could have been encouraged to buy into his last-chance Iraq strategy. The political advantage to him is obvious: Getting Democrats at least somewhat on board would have forced them to share any blame for what comes next. And the cost to him would have been relatively minor: letting them take a bit of the credit if the next steps actually work.

Instead, the president chose a direction that is destined to be undermined by Democrats, denounced by the news media and dismissed, if not ridiculed, by his most hawkish supporters. To many, the latest iteration of his unilateral decision-making comes across like a scene from the Three Stooges, trying to bail out of a sinking boat by drilling another hole in hopes that it will drain the water.

Bush’s stridence was predictable because he has no skill at leveraging a position of weakness. When dealt a lousy hand he just keeps doubling down in hopes that the other side folds. Instead of deftly co-opting the opposition after his party’s dramatic loss of the midterm election, he continues to act as if the Democrats are a non-factor.

It’s the same reason he refused to heed the Iraq Study Group’s call for diplomatic overtures to Iran and Syria. As one lawmaker who met with the president last week recalled, Bush said he will not do that until he strengthens his hand in Iraq because “I don’t want to have to ask them for anything.”

Such bravado works well in a political campaign, but at some point Bush and the Democrats must pause the permanent campaign and start making policy together.

Contributing Editor Craig Crawford is a news analyst for MSNBC, CNBC and “The Early Show” on CBS. He can be reached at ccrawford@cq.com.