Last night, the president released his new plan forward for Iraq, which includs a surge of 21,000 or more troops — in addition to the 132,000 already deployed, and over 3,000 that have died in combat.

In addition to the increase in troops, President Bush also has asked Congress for a billion dollars, to help accelerate Iraq's economy — this, adding to the $400 billion already spent on the war.

Both Democrats and Republicans on the Hill have opinions on the president's alleged proposals, with some saying a troop surge will be a "tragic mistake" and calling Iraq, "Bush's Vietnam." Others believe the effort in Iraq is pivotal for national safety, and it would be "dishonorable to take away the bullets," from soldiers on the battlefield. READ MORE

FNC wants to know what YOU would do if YOU were president — would you support a soldier surge, or would you send the troops home?

E-mail us at speakout@foxnews.com and let us know what you think!

Here's what FOX Fans are saying:

"I would do neither. I would simply remove the handcuffs from our military and let them do their job. The liberal media has kept the military from doing the ugly business of war since Vietnam. The USA needs to learn how to fight again, instead of standing there and taking it in the chin." — Mike D

"My question is: Is 20,000 enough? If this is a deployment that is meant to squash the insurgency, I would think not. The Iraqi military and civilian police are too broken to control the country, and since we 'cut off the head' of the country ,we have some responsibility to help 'fix' it. Getting the Iraqi military and civilian police to 'step up' is a formula that I do not think the Bush administration or the Democratic leadership has an answer for. The gloves have to come off, and the rules of engagement have to be broadened, in order for the U.S. to reach a level of success that will allow us to withdraw and Iraqi society to have a chance of progress. If we lose (whatever that means) we will be fighting this war on the streets of D.C., New York, and Topeka, Kansas for the next generation." — M.M

"Success now has little to do with the number of U.S. troops. By any reasonable measure, it is up to the Iraqi people themselves. If they cannot move beyond their infighting and end their civil war, more U.S. troops only means more U.S. targets. The president's problem with Iraq, is that he was, and still is, listening primarily to what he wants to hear, not to reality. For the good of the U,S,, Iraq and the world, I want us to succeed, but I see precious little chance. No matter what we do, I see increasing violence in Iraq that eventually spreads to the entire region. Usama is happy..." — Mike (Swampeast, MO)

"As a lifelong Republican it amazes me that I am actually hoping the Dems succeed is stopping any surge of troops into Iraq. Iraq cannot be won militarily. It is not OUR problem. No more American troops to Iraq!" — Barbara

"I think President Bush is correct. We have so much to lose with a defeatist attitude of some of our leaders. I have not heard any plan other than pull out. If we pull out then what? As a former Marine, I learned that if you get beat down then you get a bigger stick and take care of business. We need to take care of business in Iraq or lose our prestige in the world. Semper Fi" — Dennis

"I am an ex-Marine (recon). I never agreed with going into Iraq. I truly supported the response to 9/11 by going after the Taliban and any Al-Qaeda operatives. We are not winning the war in Iraq, we have lost, we have no exit plan, we have no plans on how to resolve the issue of foreign fighters or how to control the ongoing Civil War. The death toll has reached 3,000, a year from now that could be close to 4,000. What does it take for this current administration to realize it was a grave mistake, losing American lives, wasting tax payers money, lying to the American people. Instead of sending 20,000, bring 20,000 home. It will make no difference in Iraq, but it Is time to make a difference here at home. Bring the troops home." — Robinson

"If I were the president, I would challenge all of our enemies to a showdown. I would tell Kennedy and the like exactly what I think of them. I would tell the American people that their way is not only wrong, it is destructive and intolerable. I would let all who oppose us that not only do we have the means to win, we have the courage to do so, and the American people are sick and tired of being manipulated by terrorists and by the media. I would tell the American people that Kennedy and Pelosi don't have America's interest at heart, that they are guided by revenge for losing the Presidential election twice, and that we shouldn't listen to the hateful propaganda they are presenting to the people. I'd be absolutely clear, in a passionate and forceful way, that as long as I am the president, America will do the right thing because that is who we are. Let's challenge anyone who wants to stand in the way of democracy, progress and the freedom of those around the world to bring it on." — Terri (Arizona City, Arizona)

"It is about time! We need to have more control not less and more troops is the only think that makes since." — Dalton (Raleigh NC)

"Only if proposed and supported by the commanding officers on the ground. The suits need to stay out of it." — Jim

"I am very skeptical that this surge in troops will work. 1) The issue is not strictly military, it's also political. 2) Our government (Republicans and Democrats) have not proven themselves capable of formulating a well thought out unified plan and sticking to it. What's the determiner for when we get to leave? When we win? What's defined as winning? I'd love to see us "win" in Iraq, but if winning is: get the three religious groups in Iraq to 'play nice', stop the insurgents from coming in from all the other outside regions, train the Iraqis to step up and take some responsibility, and help the local government learn how rule effectively. I really can't see how 20,000 foot soldiers can affect policy and mind set changes of this magnitude." — Kalie (Richmond Hill)

"An increase in U.S. troops will most likely bring mixed results: a temporary reduction in insurgent attacks and a brief spike in U.S. troop deaths — just by the shear increase in potential targets — hopefully it will give the U.S. a foothold on the situation until total control is relinquished to the Iraqi's." — SC (Philadelphia PA.)

"I don't know if beefing up the troop level in Iraq will solve the problem there or not. If that is what the military leaders on the ground there suggest, then it should be done. I'm for just about anything other than the Democrat cut and run strategy." — Mark

"Of course this will not work. This is another way that looney tunes are going to justify another 100 billion dollars to throw at this mess, that has no end in sight. Does anyone remember that the administration said that this war would cost no more than 250 billion dollars? In case any of you war-nuts don't know this, we've already spent 400 billion (on what I'd really like to know). Current estimates have us spending 1 trillion dollars on this mess, and even then there's no guarantees that this will be over with. A surge in troop levels means a surge in troop deaths." — Chris

"I know that 132,000 minus 20,000 troops would definitely not equal success. It would follow that any addition of troops would make our inevitable victory occur just a little faster. Give the troops what they need to secure the region and then we can bring them home. Let those that have sacrificed so much there have the gratification from a job well done and a huge victory in this War on Terror. They are keeping this country safe from pure evil and should be honored." — Chris (Detroit, MI)

"I would support a troop surge. It would help get our troops out quicker and would prevent more people from getting killed." — C.L.

"No I don't support the troop surge. As President Bush, the man who I voted for twice, said in his first run for president, our military is not suited to be nation builders. They are trained to go into a country and destroy the oppositions army. Until this administration takes the chains off our military, and lets them fight, why send more troops? I would send in someone who can actually train the Iraqis to support themselves. After all, if we can train Americans to go fight in less than a year, why is it taking so long to teach the Iraqis?" — Roger (Streamwood, Illinois)

"If we as a nation do not win in Iraq, future generations might be fighting in our American cities ... are we willing to risk our way of life? Let's give the president and the military the means and the support they deserve to win this for all of our citizens." — Valerie (Iowa)

"Failure to achieve stability, combined with coalition troop withdrawal, would, in my opinion, result in mass killings of Iraqis and a complete destabilization of the entire Middle East region." — Pete (Syracuse, NY)

"The proposed troop surge will be useful ONLY if the rules of engagement are changed. Stop trying to fight a "P.C." war. When and where insurgents are found, kill them. When armed demonstrations are held in the streets, kill the armed demonstrators. Use military forces as warriors not cops." — Braden (Lincoln, NE)

"I stand with Bush, he was elected to be our president by the legal voting process of our country. Therefore I say, follow your commander and do not weaken his efforts with subversion. The next president may cause me to want to subvert, but I will stay with this statement." — Randy (Oregon)

"I like the proposed direction. Vietnam was a failure because we did not do what needed to be done to win the war. We can win in Iraq if we do what needs to be done to win. That includes having more troops on the ground. But we also need to make it clear to the Iraqi leadership that all insurgent, whether Sunni or Shiite need to be dealt with. If we do not totally commit to do what it takes to win and not just exist there, we should pack our bags and leave." — Tim

"The troop surge will accomplish nothing in a war that we have already lost and cannot win. It is just another example of Bush's incompetence and the American military running wild. Only our troop withdrawal will remove the catalyst that is causing the violence there!" — Gil (Monroe, WI)

"We in-the-know think President Bush's plans are justifiable. We think those against him, like Pelosi and Kennedy, are NUTS!" — Troy (Bradenton, FL)

"Didn't they try something like this about a year ago? As soon as our guys left, the insurgents came right back. It didn't seem to have made any big difference, did it. I think this surge is Bush's way of continuing his 'stay the course' policy. Even when the facts, the experts, and the American people are against it." — Ted

"I just want to say that I support WINNING in Iraq! The Democrats, want us to lose. I do not think you can fight a P.C. war. Fight wars like we did in WWII, and we'll win every time." — Wes

"20,000 more troops doesn't ensure success. What will ensure success is the will of the American people. We must support this war. It is not just a war against Saddam Hussein, it is a war against Islamists who seek to destroy Western civilization. We must not tire of fighting against these barbarians, who want us to quit and go home. 20,000 troops won't ensure that we win in Iraq, but it is a step in the right direction, in a war that we cannot afford to loose." — Shephard

"Whether you agree with the war or not, we should not abandon the commitment we made to the Iraqi people. We all seem to have short memories in not remembering why we are there, and what led up to this war.!" Jeff

"I do not support a soldier surge, nor do I support bringing the troops home at this stage. I support speeding up training of the Iraqis to protect, defend, and control their own government. Sending more troops in will make them more dependent on America to fight their battles, and will be delaying them to ultimately take complete charge in building a democratic government for themselves. " A.G (Shelby, NC)

"The troop surge will do little more than provide extra targets for the insurgents. The problem is not winning battles. It doesn't matter if our "kill ratio" is 100-1 or 1000-1. As long as they are able to blow up a Humvee, and record the act for worldwide distribution, they will continue to win. As long as a suicide car bomber is able to create chaos in a market place, they will continue to win. We cannot win this war on the field of battle, no matter how many victories our brave soldiers gain for us." — Lynn

"Yes, I support a soldier surge if it will help us to win. If we leave, the war will follow us home, which is something that most people do not realize. Our brave soldiers need to finish the job they started, or else the ones who have sacrificed their lives will be in vain. " — Clint (Arlington, TN)

"It's past time to take the gloves off. Success will come if we fight with determination to win. If that's not the way our troops are allowed to fight, then they need to come home now. I will not support any more politically correct wars, in Vietnam or Iraq. Any other way indicates a cavalier attitude toward the military." — Jerry (Knoxville, TN)

"I think the troop numbers should be doubled, to guarantee success and overwhelm the enemy, long enough for some kind of control to take hold. We simply do not have enough boots on the ground." Mike

"The commander-in-chief, not Congress, and not the polls of public opinion, are to determine our war strategy. If that is what the president believes is the best course of action, so be it. " Don (Pittsburgh, PA)

"I support the troop surge. We need to get the Iraqis up to the task of defending their own country. If a temporary surge is needed, then by all means do it. We should not pull out of Iraq until the job is done, otherwise we will be fighting the terrorists in the streets of the USA. We also, as a nation, need to get behind our president and support this war, so it can be won. We need to stop listening to the far left media and get the job done." Connie (North Dakota)

"I am for getting the troops home as soon as possible. However, I want them home AFTER the mission they started is complete. I am a Vietnam vet - it's 39 years after the fact, and I still am angry about how we failed to complete that mission." — Brian

"Will 20,000 more troops help? Sure it will, but I happen to agree with my local talk show host, that says we really need about 500,000 more troops to really deal with the problem, as we did in Germany and Japan. I fear that our politicians do not really understand the radical Iraqi mindset." — Peter

"If sending more troops to Iraq is what it takes to get the job done, then we most definitely need to do it. We've gone too far to let up now. I believe victory against the insurgency is very likely - this is, if the Iraqi government will step up to the plate and do their part in securing their country." Kenney

"I support the surge, because I hope it is a component of a new overall strategy that will include protecting neighborhoods, providing immediate reconstruction dollars to create local employment, and a no-nonsense diplomatic effort to assist the Iraqis with reconciliation. I have supported the effort from the beginning, and we have achieved many critical objectives along the way and I see this new effort in Baghdad not only necessary, but achievable. " Joel (Chicago)

"A surge will probably help in the short run. Iraqis will not allow freedom to its people, so we should protect them for now." — Gene

"We have to win this war and I believe we need more troops and more support from the country and the media to do so. If the Dems do not want to fund the war, sell War Bonds. Let's get the country involved, after all President Bush is not fighting this war for himself. It is to save our way of life." — Gabe

"I support more troops in Iraq, if we allow them to do what they need to do — destroy the enemy. The Iraq government needs to uphold its commitments and meet outlined objectives. We (United States) cannot conduct a war without having the capability, or the authority, to confront and destroy illegal militias within Iraq, regardless of being Sunni, Shiite or Kurds. I fully support our president in any action, to rid Iraq, or any other country of terrorists. We are one country and we should start acting as a united group, and put our differences aside. We have to win this War on Terror, regardless of political views. We are all targets for the terrorists." — Henry

"It must work. I am in the military and I don't think the American public understands the consequences of losing this war. If we do, the Middle East will be in disarray; no matter how you look at it, our military will be defeated. Does the American public really want that?" — Bob

"We as a nation need to be careful not to make the same mistakes we made in Vietnam. The stakes are much higher now. The decision made in Vietnam, to stop funding the war, was wrong. We cannot do that again, we need to continue to fight the war against terror, and now the battlefield happens to be Iraq. How we got there does not matter at this time. Now is not the time to debate how we got there, or how we should leave. Now is the time to fight and win, and win we must do. I think of my history lessons as a child. Washington's troops were down to 3,000 from 30,000, and we defeated the enemy at Valley Forge. This became a turning point in our fight for freedom. We must now maintain our resolve, and have that turning point to defeat our enemy." — Joe (New Haven, CT )

"I don't think a soldier surge would help the situation in Iraq, because the war has become a political, and the soldiers are not allowed to do their jobs." — Wayne

"America does not have the fortitude, to endure a long term commitment. We proved that in Korea and Vietnam. Unfortunately now, we will prove it in Iraq." — Donald

"No additional troops are needed. What IS needed are more realistic rules of engagement. The rules that exist now are too restrictive and counterproductive. Shoot first and ask questions later." — Dale

"I would not support an additional troop deployment. I have been a supporter of this war since its beginning. I understood the need to oust Saddam Hussein. I don't feel like the Iraqi people are willing to accept our help. We have done all that we can do. All that adding more troops will do is cause more of our men and women to be injured or killed. Iraq's neighbors should now take on the responsibility of maintaining stability." — Michael

"Yes, I support the president. The reasons are varied but follow two themes.

1. If someone is trying to kill you, and you kill them first, chances are they will not succeed.

2. The greatest damage the extremists could do to ruin this country, is destroying our economy. With another attack, the economy will go into a tailspin as it did in 2001-2002, after 9/11. They only way to prevent another attack is to be on the offensive. A prevent defense is a recipe for failure." — Don

"I am a Vietnam vet, with agent orange issues. I do not blame the past presidents for my problem. I also have a son on the way to Iraq, and he believes he had rather fight them there than on our home soil. The troops need to be funded so they can take care of business. I would hate for my son to be hurt, or even killed, so some of people in Washington can get a feather in their hat for not agreeing with our president when they know he is right. Who will I blame then?" — Mike (Lynchburg, TN)

"At this point in time, it's almost too late. The news media and a large majority of Democrats have continuously blamed President Bush for the situation in Iraq, but I believe he was dealing from a weakened position from the start. Had the media and the Democrats provided the president with a united U.S. position in Iraq, I believe the situation would have been considerable different. He has had very little support in the war on terror from the Congress or the news media. History has repeated it self and this country has not learned from Vietnam." — Chris

"I think we need a lot more than an extra 20,000 new troops to win this war. We need to surge heavy and fast to end this war once and for all. If we withdraw, this war will be brought to us … again. We're currently just stirring the pot in Iraq, and not hammering the terrorists back into their holes, which is where they belong." — Celeste

"There is just no substitute for soldiers "on the ground" in overwhelming numbers. Currently, we don't seem to have the manpower to track down the terrorists who launch attacks. It seems common sense that a serious increase in the numbers of troops would (or should) provide the answer to this problem." — Dan

"I am very much for President Bush's plan that I have heard this far. I feel losing is not a option, if America wants to ever feel safe or be safe again. Just stop and think about the consequences. " — Millie

" We need to take the unnecessary restraints off of our soldiers, we need to kill the bad guy! Also, the Iraqis need to step up, we've given them the most precious prize in the world, freedom — with American blood being the price." — JW

"So all this time, it was just a matter of needing 20,000 more troops? What happened to all the military people on the ground, that have been saying it's not a matter of needing more troops? I'm inclined to believe the generals and soldiers fighting in Iraq, than this administration, which is desperate to try and salvage something out of what may be America's greatest foreign policy blunder ever." — Mike (New York)

"Yes, we need a troop surge, and also an increase in bombing. President Nixon ordered bombing in Vietnam to get the Vietnamese back to the table. Had he kept up the bombing, they would have given in and we could have declared a victory instead of a political stand-off. There are casualties in every war, including civilians, women, and children. Go in and win and get it over with. We have the capabilities." — Elaine

"Sending 20,000 more of our brave American soldiers into Iraq at this point seems to be too little too late, and will just result in more U.S. casualties from IEDs and snipers. The country is in absolute chaos. We need to get out before one more American gets killed in their civil war. What is this administration thinking?" — Michael (New York)

"If the president demands that the Iraqi forces fight, and I mean fight, against all militants, regardless of religious affiliation, then the plan can work. He also needs to take off the handcuffs of the American troops and fight this as a war against all the insurgents across the country. We cannot just clear a city, like my Marines did in Fallujah, and then turn it over to an under-performing Iraqi Army and have the infiltrators allowed to creep back in. We can and must win in order for a real security umbrella to take hold in the world and away from our shores." — Thomas

"President Bush tried a "troop surge" in August, and it failed badly. So, par for the course, he will simply repeat the same strategy, and it will fail again and again and again. He doesn't learn from his mistakes. He doesn't listen to people that are smarter than him. It is a pattern with him. " — Richard (Texas)

"The idea of sending yet more troops into the civil war in Iraq is utterly incompetent. How many more brave American soldiers must be killed or wounded for Bush's mistakes? Not one more in my name. Support the troops! Bring them home!" — Mike

"The war in Iraq has evolved from removing the "butcher of Baghdad" to the front line on the war against Islamic extremism. If I were the president, I would take away all the restraints, i.e., rules of engagement, that have been placed on the military. If we are going to commit additional troops, as well as the troops that are already in theater, then the commitment should be to win; turn over security of the country to the Iraqi government. Up to this point we haven't done what is necessary to ensure victory. If our goal isn't to destroy the enemy, then we will never accomplish the goal of a democratic, self governing Iraq, or of defeating Islamic extremism. There can be no co-existing with the likes of terrorists. Lastly, the president needs to make a stronger case to the American people as to the mission, and the goal — victory." — Wince (Clermont, FL)

"I think to cut and run from Iraq would simply bring on another "situation" in the Middle East, requiring just as much logistic and human life. The Middle East Conflict and the terrorist threat is simply not going to vanish if we leave." — Daniel