Bush will announce next week he wants 20,000 additional troops in Iraq. Most congressional Dems say they’re opposed, and they’ll use the upcoming confirmation hearings for Bush’s nominees to the United Nations and for Deputy Secretary of State to make their case. But Dems will still appropriate the extra money the “surge” requires. This is politically wise, although dreadfully cynical.

Let’s be clear: Twenty thousand additional troops won’t quell the violence in Iraq. It will only lead to more American deaths. The civil-war bloodbath there is escalating and it’s out of our hands. The only practical issue here in the U.S., over and above the additional losses of life, is who will be blamed for this slaughter – and its repercussions throughout the region – especially during the runup to the 2008 election.

As long as Dems remain opposed to Bush’s policies and the Democratic leadership offers some semblance of unity in opposition – while at the same time giving Bush the money he wants to carry out his policies – the Dem candidate in 2008 can blame Bush and the Republicans, and no Republican candidate who supports Bush will have a comeback. McCain’s strategy of distancing himself from Bush by arguing for more troops is about to backfire on him, because he’s going to get what he wants – and America will see just how tragically wrong he is (Edwards has already, adeptly, labeled it the “McCain doctrine.”)

Yet wouldn’t it be extraordinary if the Dems didn’t play this political game, and refused to fund Bush’s “surge”?