Utah's two Republican House members, Rep. Rob Bishop and Rep. Chris Cannon, oppose the nonbinding resolution. Bishop calls it an act of "political cowardice" that provides cover for Democrats who voted to authorize the war, but oppose it now that it's unpopular. He said he wasn't referring specifically to Matheson.

"I think history will hold us in contempt for what we're doing," said Bishop, a former history teacher. "There are those extreme liberals who have always opposed the war and wanted us out. At least they're consistent."

The resolution being debated in the House this week is two paragraphs, expressing support for the military but opposing Bush's plan to add 21,500 new troops to the theater in an attempt to crack down on insurgents and to try to stabilize the country before it slips into chaos.

Matheson said on the House floor late Tuesday night that the president should embrace the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, which said in early December that the United States should begin redeploying its troops and reducing its presence while engaging in regional diplomacy to stabilize the Middle East.

"If military might alone could succeed, we would be done by now. The situation in Iraq has always required a more comprehensive effort. We need a plan for political and diplomatic and economic success," Matheson said.

Matheson's criticism of the war is not new. He has been expressing concerns for at least two years.

Before his speech Tuesday, Matheson visited Travis Wood, a soldier from Cedar City and father who is at Walter Reed Army Medical Center after being wounded in Afghanistan.

"[The soldiers] inspire me, and they also tell me how serious this issue is about putting people in harm's way because the lives of that family are changed forever based on these severe injuries that this soldier undertook," Matheson said.

Bishop said in an interview that opponents of the war should make the vote a binding measure to not fund the troops and force the president to remove them.

Bishop said had he been in Congress when it voted broad approval for the use of military force in 2002, he believes he would have voted against it, favoring a formal declaration of war and a thorough debate on how to succeed, although he acknowledges it is easy to say in hindsight. For now, he said, he supports the surge strategy.

"The surge in the way they are doing it . . . new people in different roles, has the only hope of ultimately succeeding in Iraq," Bishop said. "Some [experts] don't think the chance of that success is very high, but they put it as higher than simply not doing anything different and just staying the course."

Cannon argues that the resolution would undermine efforts to combat terrorism.

"I don't see any purpose here other than to embarrass the president and the effect of that is to weaken us in the eyes of our enemies," Cannon said in an interview. "We have not had another terrorist attack since 9/11. That's astonishing. And I think this is an invitation to those who hate us to make another attack."

The House is expected to continue debating the measure and vote on it by the end of the week. In the Senate, Republicans last week blocked a vote on a resolution opposing the troop surge. Both Sen. Orrin Hatch and Sen. Bob Bennett voted to block votes on the Iraq resolutions.

Hatch said in a floor speech that the blunders of the Iraq war will be read about in history books and Bush must answer for the mistakes that have been made, but he believes the surge the president proposes is the only plan that will bring success.