This is it. Tonight President Bush will call for a surge of 20,000 troops to Iraq in a last-ditch effort to salvage some sort of victory there. It's fair to say tonight's speech will be one of the most important of his presidency, and as he goes before the nation to deliver such a momentous message he's never been more alone politically.

Democrats vow to oppose Bush's plan, though they're unable to muster the courage of their convictions to do the one thing within their Constitutional power that would effectively cripple or even prevent it:

Despite polls showing Americans overwhelmingly opposed to the war, despite the mounting American military casualties, and despite the obvious ineffectiveness of the entire enterprise until now to bring stability to Iraq, Democrats at the very heart of the party's anti-war wing still think the political costs would simply be too high.

Instead, Democrats plan to hold a series of hearings and cast "symbolic votes" against the proposal which, despite being politically pusillanimous, is the only way they can square their opposition to the war without suffering the consequences of voting to defund it.

On the other side, Republicans aren't exactly coming off as models of political courage either. In particular, outside of John McCain, there's been a conspicuous silence on the subject of a troop surge by those who aspire to be the next Commander in Chief, including Rudy Giuliani, whose entire candidacy rests on the mantle of leadership and the ability to make sound judgments in times of crisis.

To refuse to answer the question about surging troops in Iraq by saying "I'm just a Governor" as Mitt Romney did the other week, or by deflecting the question until after the President speaks as Giuliani's camp did yesterday is, quite frankly, pathetic.

If you believe that it's still imperative that we win in Iraq, as both Romney and Giuliani have said publicly for months, then there's absolutely no reason, other than an unwillingness to take political heat, for either to have remained silent on the matter for so long. We are not talking about "preempting" the President, or even undermining him if you happen to disagree with his decision, but rather weighing in on the most important question facing the country right now: what do we do about the situation in Iraq? Will more troops help? If not why? What other changes need to be made?

Say what you want about John McCain, but at least he had the fortitude to stand up and be counted and to say that the political consequences of his opinion "pale in comparison to what I think is most important to our nation's security." He may be wrong, but at least he's leading.

After all, as Tony Blankley writes today, "when we are talking about war and peace, about life and death of our young citizen warriors, we owe them (and ourselves) as much honest talk as we can muster." I would add that we owe them more than an honest debate, we owe the troops action that will give them the best possible chance of successfully completing their mission.