I disagree with the surge.
As I've mentioned before, I don't think it's going to be effective - that the president insists that it will work with an extra 21,500 when that's just about how many we could afford to increase the troop load by seems a bit too coincidental.
But, I believe that the President has this authority under his duties as Commander-in-Chief. I think Congress is wrong to try to strip funding for a part of the war - trying to use the pursestrings to execute Commander-in-Chief duties. I see this as an unconstitutional act on the part of Congress, and one that does not jive with Congress' joint resolution authorizing the invasion (I mean "liberation"). I think that Congress has the authority, after the two year period for which they've authorized funds to raise an army have expired, they have the option of no longer funding the war, period, or they can renew funding. I see the threat of not funding one portion of the president's strategy to be an unconstitutional foray into executive powers.
I'm not alone in this thinking - in this op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal, a writer has said somewhat better what I tried to say above. Though I do not agree with everything in the article, I think he is right on point with this premise.
The law in this area is unclear, which is why there is debate as to whether or not Congress can do this, but I think a challenge that went to the Court would rule against Congress' actions, and in the interim, many of our soldiers would be in greater harm than they already are by the President's string of bad decisions.