A democratic republic? OK, then maybe somebody can explain why the president can't be stopped from sending another 21,000 troops to Iraq. Congress is against it; most people are against it.

What do we have, a dictator in the White House and a Congress too wimpy to impose its will?

If I hear more lawmakers say they wouldn't have authorized the war if they "knew then what they know now,'' I'm going to insist that they go down in historical infamy standing next to the president.

What didn't they know: That Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11; that Saddam and Osama weren't allies; that their president was misguided; that too many people would die.

Back in October 2002, Congress voted overwhelmingly to approve Bush's plan to use military action _ to enforce U.N. resolutions regarding inspections for alleged weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Still shaky from 9/11, lawmakers were afraid of the possibility of more attacks based on the misinformation they were getting from the administration.

In the following months, the lies and deceptions continued as the president sought to justify the plan for an invasion to Americans, allies and the rest of the world. And despite reports that the WMD just didn't exist, bogus evidence was concocted to the contrary.

You remember what happened next: The invasion in March; the blitzkrieg of Baghdad and the May Day 2003 declaration by Bush that major combat operations were over.

And then the nightmare began. Now, 3,000 troop deaths and hundred of thousands of Iraqi fatalities later, in the midst of a civil war, the gradual eroding of support for the war has reached well beyond a majority in both the halls of Congress and in living rooms.

So, we are left asking why the upcoming congressional vote on the so-called "surge" of 21,000 more troops is only symbolic. It would be like saying: "we oppose the war, don't want to send more troops, actually want to end the occupation, but we're afraid to take action, so we're just going to go on record as not being a part of this action.''

There's no question that Congress can cut off funding for the war. But that makes no sense. Why send 21,000 more troops to Iraq and then leave them helpless with no more money to do their jobs?

The question of whether and how to use its power to end the war in Iraq, after what amounted to a ballot-box mandate in November to do so, is the top issue being faced by the newly empowered Democratic majority in Congress.

If expanding the war with more troops is not "in the national interest,'' then why would we want to oppose such action with a "nonbinding'' vote.

The War Powers Resolution of 1973 gives Congress the role of authorizing or not a president's use of military action, but there's no reason lawmakers can't decide later to rescind that authorization. And that's what Congress needs to do now _ before a surge in troop strength draws us even deeper into a civil war over which we have no control.

Peace is not going to occur in Iraq as long as the U.S. has a military presence. In fact, with the administration's growing hostility toward Iran and Syria, the added troops may do nothing but lead to more deadly wars.

And what if Bush refuses to obey a "binding'' wish of Congress to de-authorize the Iraq war? Then it will be time to call out the impeachment forces and let Bush join Richard Nixon in the dust bin of disgraced presidents.

We already have about 132,000 troops in Iraq. Their efforts at securing the country, while valiant, are overwhelmed by the extent of the insurgency and Sunni-Shiite civil war on the one hand, and the inability of our Iraqi allies to prevent violence.

The U.S. has spent $300 billion so far on this war. Let your imagination wonder what we could have done with that money. Darfur, New Orleans, end hunger in this country, cleaner emissions _ dream about it.

Adding another 21,000 troops and spending another $1.2 billion won't help bring peace. It may instigate the contrary.

The best action we can take right now is for Congress to end the military action immediately. Let's bring the troops home and let the dust in Iraq settle where it may. It seems to doing that anyway.

------

Cary Brunswick, managing editor of The Daily Star, can be reached at (607) 432-1000, ext. 217, or cary@thedailystar.com.