Recent comments from Bush administration leaders meant to reassure the public about Iraq make it increasingly clear that Congress is going to have to step up and play a stronger role in developing an acceptable exit strategy.

We’re entering the fourth year of involvement and there are scant signs that the administration is either aware of its mistakes or willing to acknowledge them and change course. Similarly, the administration is seemingly alone in painting an upbeat assessment.

Iraq’s former Prime Minister Ayad Illawi sees civil war, “If this is not civil war, then God knows what civil war is.” Nearly 80 percent of Americans, including 70 percent of Republicans, see civil war.

President Bush does not. Vice President Dick Cheney does not. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld sees World War II, noting in a recent opinion column, “Turning our back on postwar Iraq today would be the modern equivalent of handing postwar Germany back to the Nazis.”

Unlike Iraq, there was no resistance in U.S.-occupied Germany. Unlike Germany, most Iraqis want U.S. troops to leave. Plus, Germany had been governed by a democracy at some point in its history, which made it easier to establish one.

Like it or not, the best parallel is Vietnam, where U.S. troops won virtually every battle but lost the war. We are in a war of attrition. More than 2,300 American troops have been killed and more than 17,000 wounded. Approximately 30,000 Iraqi civilians have died.

What can proponents of the war tell the next soldiers to be sent over there? What are they fighting for?

The original rationales – weapons of mass destruction, ties to al-Qaida and threats to the United States – have fallen by the wayside. Now we’re left with the worthy goal of establishing a democracy that will take root and spread throughout the Middle East. Worthy, but unrealistic.

Instead, nations like Egypt are becoming more radicalized. The terrorist group Hamas won the Palestinian elections. Iran and Syria are making our job in Iraq more difficult.

Congress is beginning to show signs of challenging the administration’s Iraq campaign, something it should have been doing all along. Thus far, it has approved nearly $400 billion in spending on the war without asking many questions. Here’s a pertinent one: Other than the removal of Saddam Hussein, what have we gotten in exchange for that enormous sum?

Congress ought to hold the administration accountable for that spending. Has it made us safer from terrorist attacks on U.S. soil, as some argue? That’s highly speculative. And the reflexive “we must support the troops” is as tired as soldiers on their second or third tours.

The public has turned against the administration’s handling of the war. It’s past time for representatives and senators to emerge from the White House’s shadow and pose serious challenges.

Cynics are partly right that the catalyst for courage is the midterm elections and the war’s flagging popularity. But the reason is less significant than the result.