Opposition Democrats have seized on the issue in the run-up to the November 2 presidential election even as President George W. Bush's administration would likely prefer to steer clear of the potentially unpopular measure of boosting troop strength.

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said Wednesday that US troops due to leave Iraq may have to remain in the country to stamp out uprisings against US forces. Rumsfeld told a Pentagon press conference military commanders in Iraq would manage the redeployments so "seasoned" troops see through the current spate of uprisings.

The Defense Department is in the midst of rotating reinforcements into Iraq to take over from the battle-hardened troops who have been there for the past year.

And Centcom chief General John Abizaid asked commanders to outline a number of possible reinforcement options for if the situation on the ground takes further turns for the worse.

The issue kicked up some heated debate in Congress Wednesday with prominent Democratic Senator Robert Byrd saying: "Starkly put, at this juncture, more US forces in Iraq equates more US targets in Iraq. The harsh reality is this: one year after the fall of Baghdad, the United States should not be casting about for a formula to bring additional US troops to Iraq. We should instead be working toward an exit strategy."

Democratic senator Joe Lieberman in contrast endorsed sending more US troops. "Our troops on the ground in Iraq now are too few in number to battle the insurgents and establish the civil order needed to ensure Iraq does not descend into civil war," Lieberman said.

Conservatives are divided as well.

Several Republican senators have voiced concerns in recent days. And columnist Robert Novak said Thursday in the Washington Post that US generals, while not grumbling openly, privately are alarmed at what they see as low troop strength. He said the United States was overextended and that the Pentagon poorly calculated the number of troops needed.

"When things go wrong, the immediate reaction is to say you should send in more troops," said Anthony Cordesman, a strategy expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, who does not believe more troops are the answer.

"There is a major rotation in place; if you need more troops you can have some stay longer," Cordesman said, schoing Rumsfeld that quality is more critical than the quantity of troops. "They may need certain specialists," he allowed.

General William Nash, former commander in Bosnia and an expert at the Council on Foreign Relations, would have liked for more troops to be sent in just after the war.

"It might have prevented the chaos that took place after the fall of Saddam, set a better tone." But now he thinks that unless the situation does not worsen dramatically keeping some troops on duty longer could be enough.

Loren Thompson of the conservative military center Lexington Institute told AFP: "The vast majority of Iraqis do not support religious radicals or attacks on US forces. Because hard-core opposition to a US presence is not widespread, I doubt a significant increase in forces will be required."

WAR.WIRE