[pubmanager]

I was reading a piece in the Guardian today and I gathered that the Dems are slightly stuck.

The only way for them to protest at this troop increase is to not endorse the budget. They have made representations to the white house to separate the expenditure into money for more troops and money for existing troops.

If this happens they will be able to vote against funding more troops but if not they will stand to be accused of not supporting the troops which will then be used as ammunition by the Reps.

I don't see how they can win if the expenditure for the military is all bundled together.

This is my understanding of the situation, please correct me if I'm wrong.

Also I think it is worth noting the language being used, the word "surge" implies a short term increase however the facts do not support this interpretation as the timetable requires this increased presence to be maintained for at least 18 months, Lt. Gen Raymond Odierno is reported as saying that the new military operation could see Iraqi gov. forces in control of Bagdad within a year and the whole mission accomplished within 2-3 years. (excuse me for remembering that Bush declared "mission accomplished" quite some time ago)

I believe the use of language is intentionally misleading to the public and is typically underhanded and typical of the current administration.

Notwithstanding the fact that any increase in the numbers of troops wilfully ignores the recommendations of the Baker-Hamilton review is this not simply throwing good money after bad?