1-09-07, 9:26 am

We’ve had so much hype about the proposed “surge” of troops in Iraq, for weeks now, that when President Bush finally releases the details of the plan, perhaps as early as Wednesday, they will likely come as a surprise to no one.

It will probably involve numbers on the smaller side, in the neighborhood of 20,000, probably with no fixed timetable; the soldiers are to participate in an expanded version of what the United States already started last summer in Baghdad, a “security operation” that has disastrously increased the level of violence. If Iraqi Health Ministry figures give any indication, the commencement of “Operation Forward Together” coincides closely with a near-tripling of the numbers of Iraqi civilians and police killed. And it will involve greater funds given directly to military commanders with which to buy off “hearts and minds,” by creating small-scale jobs programs – an idea that might have made a real difference had it been implemented about three years ago.

What has been a surprise, however, is the response of the Democrats to these plans. It started when the until recently ultra-hawkish Joe Biden, sensing a change in the prevailing winds, came out strongly against such an escalation; after that, his announcement that he would run for president was a foregone conclusion.

Considerably more important, Nancy Pelosi, going on CBS’s Face the Nation on Sunday, hinted that Democrats might even consider using Congress’s celebrated “power of the purse” to oppose the president’s escalation plans, saying somewhat coyly that the president would no longer have a “blank check” for expansion.

All of this, coming a mere three weeks before a major antiwar march in Washington, with included lobby day, planned by United for Peace and Justice, presents the antiwar movement with a strategic opportunity of the kind that has been rare to nonexistent until now.

Aside from a street presence for a few hours a few times a year, the primary contribution of the antiwar movement at the national level in the past few years has been to call consistently for immediate withdrawal of troops – at the local level, considerably more has been accomplished in some areas.

For the past year, and especially since the elections, United for Peace and Justice in particular has made frequent reference to the possibility that Congress will cut off funding for the war.

Unfortunately, while this is a perfectly acceptable call, like calling for an end to the occupation now, the idea of building significant support for it in Congress is a fantasy. Congress is traditionally extremely leery of doing anything to hamper a president’s ability to conduct a war once it has been approved of. Even the celebrated final de-funding of the Vietnam War, happening at the absolute zenith of Congressional power and the nadir of presidential power, did not occur until December 1974, over a year and a half after final withdrawal of regular U.S. troops and a mere five months before the end and final victory by North Vietnam and the NLF.

Opposition to this war, though roughly as wide as opposition to the Vietnam War became, is nowhere near as deep. And the Democrats’ doing anything that might be interpreted as undermining troops in the field is unthinkable – indeed, Pelosi has categorically denied that the Democrats would do so.

Using the purse strings to keep further troops from being sent into the hell that we have made Iraq is very different, however, from trying to use them to force withdrawal of troops already there, something that Congress has never done. Even here, there is controversy – Biden, for example, on Meet the Press, said that he thought refusing to fund the escalation would be “unconstitutional.” He should consider becoming White House legal counsel once he loses in 2008.

But such opinions are rare; many Democrats might follow Pelosi’s lead if pressured. And, according to a column by Robert Novak, only 12 Republican senators support an escalation, although for them to overcome partisan pressures will be difficult.

Although the antiwar movement will, of course, keep its demand of an immediate end to the occupation, it is desperately in need of a campaign to accomplish something doable. Pressuring Democrats -- and Republicans – in Congress to cut off funding for an escalation might just be the ticket.

From Empire Notes

--Rahul Mahajan is publisher of the blog Empire Notes and occasionally teaches at New York University. He has been to Iraq twice and reported from Fallujah during the siege in April 2004. He has been published widely, including in USA Today, Newsday, the Baltimore Sun, the Times of India, and the Jordan Times. His first book, 'The New Crusade: America's War on Terrorism' (April 2002, Monthly Review Press), has been described as 'mandatory reading for anyone who wants to get a handle on the war on terrorism.' His second book, 'Full Spectrum Dominance: U.S. Power in Iraq and Beyond' (June 2003, Seven Stories Press), is a wide-ranging look at the war on Iraq, the plans of the Project for a New American Century, and the Bush administration's imperial policies in practice since 9/11.