Political science professor James Ray still wonders whether the deployment of additional troops to Iraq will prove effective although two months have elapsed since the Bush administration announced the plan.

Whether or not the policy initially stabilizes the country, Ray said he questions the permanence of any change.

"Surely at some point, this massive input of funds and person power will have some stabilizing impact," Ray said. "But the crucial question is not ‘Will there be less violence?' but ‘What happens when at long last the United States substantially reduces its military commitment to Iraq?'"

The plan, termed "The New Way Forward" by President George W. Bush, calls for a 20,000-soldier expansion of stationed forces in Iraq, centered primarily in Baghdad.

The additional troops would work in close conjunction with the Iraqi government and police in an effort to minimize factional violence between Sunni and Shiite sects, as well as strengthen general United States peacekeeping endeavors in the war-torn country.

Ray said the U.S. does not want to leave a hostile regime in power after our troops depart Iraq and hopes to prevent such resentment with the formation of a coalition government.

"(The United States) is committed - with lots of conditions - to the development of an Iraqi state," Ray said. "It doesn't want an autonomous Iraq if it is a passionately anti-American state dedicated to expelling all American influence from itself and the Middle Eastern region."

According to law professor Michael Newton, the short-term influx of U.S. troops makes this objective easier but will eventually require effort from Iraqis themselves.

"Victory ... cannot be measured by numbers or artificial withdrawal dates or terrorist cadavers," Newton said. "As (T.E. Lawrence) would say, the only lasting victory in Iraq will be won by Iraqis on behalf of Iraqis."

The latest proposed resolution calls for a total withdrawal of U.S. forces by July 2008, just months before the presidential election.

"Will they vote to set (withdrawal) deadlines, and/or cut off funds, if they believe that such measures will pass in both the Senate and the House, and survive a president's veto?" Ray said. "I would bet that most of them won't."

Ray added that many Democratic legislators are currently reluctant to cut off funds to Iraq.

"After Congress cut off funds from South Vietnam in the 1970s ... the Democratic Party has been, in the eyes of many Americans, suspect on national security issues," Ray said.

The troop surge has received a mixed reception among some Vanderbilt students.

"I think it's too little, too late," said sophomore Sean Tierney. "It's a problem when we're still sending troops in an attempt to stabilize Iraq four years after the war."

Freshman Amanda Heinbockel said she supports the troop surge, provided it "helps us to withdraw our troops more quickly."