so, who is in favour of this surge in U.S. troop numbers in Iraq?

Amongst those against-

The Iraq Study Group called the situation in Iraq "grave and deteriorating" Wednesday and recommended a radically different approach from President Bush's current policy, including the withdrawal of most U.S. combat troops by early 2008.

The nation's top uniformed leaders are recommending that the United States change its main military mission in Iraq from combating insurgents to supporting Iraqi troops and hunting terrorists, But the Joint Chiefs think the White House, after a month of talks, still does not have a defined mission and is latching on to the surge idea in part because of limited alternatives, despite warnings about the potential disadvantages for the military.

no more troops from NATO countries would be sent to the country. (An older statement, but their position hasn't changed.)

most Democrats and an increasing number of Republicans in the legislature believe sending more troops compounds a bad situation.

The latest public opinion poll from the Associated Press and the Ipsos research firm found that 70 percent of those surveyed oppose sending additional troops to Iraq, a finding consistent with other recent polls.

Meanwhile, a radical Shiite cleric is condemning U.S. plans to send more troops to Iraq. The deployment would be part of a wide-ranging new effort to curb violence waged by militias, including those loyal to Muqtada al-Sadr.

An al-Sadr spokesman said Iraq's problems are due to the U.S. presence and called on America to withdraw. The spokesman urged Americans to oppose sending more troops who might end up "flown back in coffins."

Sitting on the fence-

Al-Maliki may not even tolerate the presence of more US troops for long, although he spared Bush the humiliation this week of saying so outright. But leading Shias, close to al-Maliki and his sometime rival Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, have openly opposed the notion of a “surge”, as an encroachment into Iraqi sovereignty. There lies the rub. They have taken the US at its word — that it has transferred sovereignty to Iraq’s elected leaders, and is staying only to advise and help. Let us run our country, then, and tell the US how to help, is their answer. But after years of suppression by the Sunni elite, the leaders of the Shia majority seem in little mood to make concessions to a minority, although they go through the motions of acknowledging the principle in their pledges to the US.

& those for it-

Frederick Kagan, "resident scholar" at the American Enterprise Institute, a neocon finktank, who basically wrote the blueprint for the surge.

The President must request a substantial increase in active duty ground forces
– At least 30K Army and Marines per year for the next two years
– Vital to offset increased demands on the ground forces in Iraq
– Vital to provide strategic options in many scenarios beyond Iraq
– Increases must be permanent

Gen. Petraeus, new chief cook & bottlewasher for U.S. forces in Iraq who assumed his position after the "retirement" of the previous incumbent who did not support an increase. He "stands out from his predecessor as a believer in the value of increased troop strength in Iraq".

He is also the co-author of the Army's "brilliant new counterinsurgency field manual", in which he endorsed the principle that 20 counterinsurgents per 1,000 residents is "the minimum troop density required for effective COIN operations." To pacify Baghdad, therefore, would require at least 120,000 American and Iraqi combat troops. There are 70,000 U.S. combat personnel in Iraq, only a fraction of which are deployed in Baghdad. Figuring effective Iraqi combat strength is a numbers game.

But what that means is don't be surprised if troop numbers rise again because the existing numbers don't meet the model.

Abdul-Aziz al-Hakim (again, & somewhat different to his position above) said the government should "strike with an iron fist" against anyone who endangers the "safety of people."

He's also urging al-Sadrs’s militia to disarm. The militia has been blamed for much of the sectarian violence that has killed thousands.

Al-Hakim heads the 130-strong Shiite bloc in Iraq's parliament. He offered his support just hours after President Bush announced his new strategy to stop the violence.

& then there's the President. Who knows what goes on in his tiny brain, but all I can come up with, watching his tears at a medal ceremony for a dead U.S. serviceman, is to use something said some time back by Richard Armitage to Colin Powell, & take it totally out of context.

‘Has he [President Bush] thought this through?’ Armitage asked Powell. ‘What the President says in effect is we’ve got to press on in honor of the memory of those who have fallen. Another way to say that is we’ve got to have more men fall to honor the memories of those who have already fallen.’”