In my view the SURGE was really a way of adding troops they could later pull out to make it look like they were pulling troops out. But when Bush announces the Troop withdrawls (to make himself and the Republicans who today are according to the press, drilling Petraeus hard, look good). Yet the withdrawls will amount to no net difference because they will first only withdraw part of the "surge."

It's a common negotiators trick, to demand something they don't need, and then give it up and make it seem like they made a compromise. Also, note that there was a similar build up in 2006! Look at a chart of troop levels since the start of the war.
Bush is standing by his plan to simply hand this mess over to the next President - God help them.

Also, now note the Republicans can claim victory for grilling Patraeus and then claim another victory in agreeing on troop reductions. (but again, it's not a reduction because we put way more than we needed so their could be a fake withdrawl next year.)

Given recent statements by Democratic leaders in Congress that suggest they are returning to a strategy, not of confronting and challenging Republicans walking in lockstep with Bush, but wooing and conciliating them, your assumption that Republican losses in 2008 automatically translate into Democratic victories is a weak one. Here is what Robert Parry writes yesterday in Consortium News:

“George W. Bush reportedly told Australia’s deputy prime minister that “we’re kicking ass” in Iraq, but the pithy tough talk may fit better with what the President is doing to the Democrats in Congress.
To cover their political beating, some Democratic operatives are advising the party’s leadership to claim a measure of victory when Bush and Gen. David Petraeus agree to make a symbolic troop cut – perhaps 5,000 – from the current levels of about 172,000.
“The challenge for us is whether we will be able to take ‘yes’ for an answer,” one leading (though unidentified) Democratic strategist told Washington Post columnist David Ignatius. This “smart Democrat strategy,” as described by the strategist, would be to argue that Bush’s actions are in line with what the Democrats want….
But a Democratic “victory” declaration would not likely pass the smell test for the party’s anti-war base, which would view saying “yes” as not even a fig leaf, more like a tiny pasty trying to cover the Democrats’ nakedness.

After all, when the Democrats won control of Congress in November 2006, Bush had about 130,000 American troops in Iraq. The political momentum also was in favor of a significant withdrawal of U.S. forces in the near future.
Now, Bush and Petraeus are indicating a willingness to trim troop levels by about 5,000 over the next few months, which would leave the numbers about 37,000 higher than they were when the Democrats rode popular opposition to the war to their narrow congressional majorities. …

If that’s “victory,” it’s hard to envision how the Democrats would define “defeat.”…
… the goal of the Democratic leadership appears to be scoring a few rhetorical points, accepting defeat (albeit perhaps spun as some kind of “victory”), and then using the Iraq War as a campaign issue in 2008, rather than making a serious fight over bringing the troops home as quickly as possible.”

From Chris Weygant, a blogger on Huffington Post who has been defending the Democratic leaders’ strategy to raging posters for months:

“This upcoming week is going to be perhaps the most important week of the 110th Congress. General Petraeus will give his report, Ambassador Crocker will likewise report; and the debate on what to do next in Iraq will begin in earnest.
So why are Democrats seemingly admitting defeat -- before the argument has even begun? Why are you essentially taking what should be a position of strength, and (by buying into the White House's spin) turning it into a position of weakness? Do you really think this is the best way to end the Iraq war, or (for that matter) the best way to convince voters to vote for Democrats in 2008? …
If you don't grab the reins pretty soon, and start shaping the Iraq debate in language that presents your view of the situation, you are going to have pulled off a rather singular political feat: turning a wildly popular position (getting out of Iraq, which consistently polls at 60-70% approval of the American public at large) from a "right and strong" position into "right and weak." Which means you're going to lose the initiative, in a big way.

If you pass some namby-pamby: "We really think that at some point in the future, we really really should consider getting out of Iraq... when the president thinks it's a good idea" bill, with no deadlines and no threat of withholding funds for the war and no pressure on Bush whatsoever -- then the voters are going to reward you next year with defeat. Strongly anti-war Democratic primary challenges will sprout across America's Democratic safe districts like dandelions. And Ned Lamont should have already proved to you what a headache that can be.

Furthermore, the "netroots" are going to abandon you entirely -- that wellspring of campaign funds is going to run dry so fast it will shock you to your bones. Speaker Pelosi, you already face a challenger in Cindy Sheehan, and you may consider her a political gadfly at this point, but if you can't shepherd some meaningful legislation through the House in the next few weeks, you may be surprised at how popular her campaign may become. To say nothing of the rabidly anti-war sites like MoveOn.org, which may be actively supporting primary challengers across the country.

Are you really willing to throw away a Democratic majority in Congress -- and quite possibly the White House -- for the supposed benefits of appearing "bipartisan" in the next few weeks? That is the question you should be asking yourselves. …
I warn you, if you spend the next few weeks arguing how best to acquiesce to the Republican demands over the progress of the war in Iraq, you are going to pay a heavy price in next year's elections. If you cannot stand up to a President with approval ratings hovering around (and below) 30%, then the voters are simply going to decide that your party cannot be trusted with the nation's security.

How are American citizens supposed to believe that the Democrats would be the best party to prosecute the war on Islamic terrorism if they can't even stand up to the minority Republicans in Congress?

History is watching Congress this week. So is the public at large. If you use this scrutiny to prove the Republican hypothesis that Democrats can't be trusted with the reins of power -- then congratulations, because you have successfully sabotaged the 2008 elections.”

For myself (Cathy), if Democrats don’t turn their act around pretty soon, I will (with heavy heart because I know it’s largely useless) return to voting Green or progressive third party as I have done most of my life.

For much of my voting life (since the late 60’s) I’ve struggled with this problem – hold my nose and vote Democratic even though Democratic candidates espoused policies that I strongly disagreed with or vote for a third party candidate whom I could with a clear conscience support. (Voting Republican was, of course, unthinkable.) When I was young and idealistic I came to the conclusion that it was better to vote FOR a candidate I believed in than against another one – in other words, even though Republican candidates were bad, it didn’t justify voting for a Democrat (say Jimmy Carter), some of whose policies I strongly disagreed with, just because he wasn’t Reagan. A vote should be a positive, not a negative act, I thought. I was hoping that if enough liberals voted for third party candidates instead of Dems, the latter would get the message: stop trying to out-Republican the Republicans and represent the left of center policies that had once defined the Democratic party. Call me an idealistic fool, but there it is.

My hope was never realized and the party has continued (for reasons there’s no room here to get into) to move inexorably rightwards until the apotheosis of the Republican Lite Clinton administration. I make no apologies whatever (as some seem to think necessary) for voting for Nader in 2000 since Gore did not or was not able to distance himself from his predecessor’s policies. (I would vote for Gore today.)

The first time I abandoned this policy of voting for what I believed in instead of making of my vote an expedient to use against Republicans was in 2004. Along with so many others, I recognized that the danger the Bushites posed to this country and the world was so pressing that they had to be stopped if at all possible. In 2006 I was finally lucky enough to have a Democratic candidate I could vote for in good conscience, Michael Arcuri. I believe he has been a strong anti-war voice and if he continues to be I’ll continue to vote for him. I doubt if I could vote for Hillary Clinton again, for Senate, at least. But I have been mightily disgusted at recent actions and statements by many Democratic leaders, especially in Congress. It may be melodramatic to say that a struggle is being waged for the soul of the Democratic party, but something like that is happening now, as you know. I just wanted to remind Bob Fertik, who writings I admire, that without us in the progressive base, the party will become far from irresistable.

Mr. Harding, instead of jumping on my statement that I may have to vote third party in the future, it would be better for you to pay attention to what Parry, Weigant, and others are saying. Vote for a “real” Democrat, you say? Does that exclude the so-called Blue Dogs, or political hacks like Rahm Emanuel? If not, what does a “real” Democrat consist of? I also resent your characterizing what I said as a “threat.” Guess you don’t know what “with a heavy heart” means. Again this has been a lifelong, heartfelt struggle for me. Voting for “a neocon Republican”? I suppose you mean not voting Democratic is tantamount to voting Republican. I reject that as simplistic and a trivialization. If the Democratic party wants to get the votes of progressives they better start doing something positive to earn them rather than expecting them to fall in their laps.