It begins. Murtha meant it when he said he wants the troops out of Iraq, and he intends to do something to try and stop the "surge".

When we asked about the likelihood of the president sending additional troops to Iraq, Murtha was adamant. "The only way you can have a troop surge," he told us, "is to extend the tours of people whose tours have already been extended, or to send back people who have just gotten back home." He explained at length how our military forces are already stretched to the breaking point, with our strategic reserve so depleted we are unprepared to face any additional threats to the country. So does that mean there will be no surge? Murtha offered us a "with Bush anything is possible" look, then said: "Money is the only way we can stop it for sure." To this end, Murtha, the incoming Chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense, is planning to hold wide-ranging hearings, starting January 17th, that will focus on the depleted state of our military readiness , as well as contractor corruption in Iraq and Afghanistan. The goal is to turn the spotlight on how drained the military has become, and on how any talk of a troop surge is utterly irresponsible (as well as strategically misguided). "The public," he said repeatedly, "is already ahead of us on all this. He says he wants to "fence the funding," denying the president the resources to escalate the war, instead using the money to take care of the soldiers as we bring them home from Iraq "as soon as we can."

As David Sirota points out, Murtha's on the second most powerful committee in the House - the appropriations committee. If the other members back him, and odds are enough of them will, he's in a position to really punish other House members who buck him. Getting on the wrong side of an influential appropriations member is a good way to get no money for your district, ever. Smart operators know that.

Now about about blackjack - 21 is the best hand in blackjack and twenty-one is the margin the Democrats have over the Republicans in the House. Lose that many to a Republican-Right Wing Republican coalition, and Pelosi will be speaker in name only.

More After the Jump

Odds of losing that many? I don't know. My sense is that it's not as high as Republicans would like, or as it might have been under other circumstances, mostly because the Republicans were so vindcictive and mean to the Democrats (even going so far as to call the DC police on the Democrats at one point.) And the vindictiveness went to a very petty level - for example Republican staffers received new blackberries - Democratic staffers second-haders. It's the extra gratuitous kick to the ribs that people don't forive - or forget. And Pelosi (and Hoyer) have been quite good about maintaining general discipline. Even if Hoyer and Rahm don't always agree with Pelosi, it's not in their interest to split the caucus in any serious fashion.

Still there's a strong feeling amongst many that the President is the commander-in-chief, and that Congress's job is to rubber stamp his demands. (See for example this execrable example from newly elected rep. Boyda.) There's also a great deal of fear of appearing responsible for the loss of the Iraq war - the calculation being that if you give Bush everything he wants, and he still loses (which we all know he will) then the blame can't be pinned on you. A lot of Congresscritters are old enough to remember how Democrats somehow wound up blamed for losing the Vietnam War and they don't want to wear the Iraq war for the next thirty years.

So there's going to be a strong push from some quarters to give Bush some more rope to hang himself (along with another hundred thousand Iraqis and another thousand American troops). Whether it'll be enough remains to be seen - as much as there are some Democrats who will cross the line on this, there are some Republicans who have just bloody well had enough of both the war and for Bush. The rope they gave Bush just hung them in the mid-term elections and they don't feel they owe him anything.

The Senate is a more tricky - the Democrats go in not having the majority, since at the very least they'll lose Lieberman (whose promises during the election to bring the boys home seem to have been forgotten lickey-split once he won) and probably a few others. Hilary Clinton is another Senator who is determined not to ever allow anyone to call her "weak" and she'll vote to give the President more toops to waste. Both Nelson's will also back a surge. However a number of Republican Senators appear to have had enough of the war as well, so it's possible the Senate may take action.

Still, on the balance of probabilities, Bush will get his surge. If necessary he has the authority, thanks to the enabling act, to grab money from any other department's budget and funnel it into the war. And anyone who thinks Bush won't do it, simply hasn't been paying attention.

If, however, Congress does try to stop him, and he does an end run around them or simply defies them, then the gauntlet will be down. Congress will then either have to confront him directly or resign itself to irrelevancy in a truly imperial Presidency.

In the end, however, Democrats should be willing to have the confrontation, because they should remember that they have the mandate for it. They were elected to end the war, and if Bush won't do it, their job is to face him down and make him do it - or to get rid of him. If they won't do it, not only will Congress have consigned itself to powerlessness, but Americans will remember that Democrats did not do what they were elected to do, and there will be electoral consequences to that in 2008.

When you have a mandate you must act on it.

We'll see if enough Democrats understand that, very soon.