President Bush is expected to announce on Wednesday his government's decision to send more troops to Iraq, perhaps as many as 20,000, in the hope that a last "surge" of US military might can subdue the insurgents and bring the country back out of civil war. It is a decision that is likely to be the most controversial of his remaining two years in office and one which is not at all certain of getting the desired result.
The new speaker of the House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi, promised on her election last week to foster "partnership not partisanship". Iraq is the most divisive issue in US politics and while Republicans are in two minds about committing even more troops, the majority of Democrats are bitterly opposed. The deployment will put an immediate strain on the partnership that Ms Pelosi promised but, in reality, the Democrats will be unable - or unwilling - to frustrate Mr Bush's decision.
The Democratic Party now holds a sizeable majority of 21 in the House of Representatives and a majority of just one in the Senate. Ms Pelosi will make good on her commitment to push through her party's carefully chosen main campaign promises which include an increase in the minimum wage, government funding for stem-cell research and more effective rules governing the relationship between legislators and lobbyists. The Democrats can be confident of getting their bills through the House but the wafer-thin majority in the Senate makes passage there less certain. Even then, Mr Bush can still exercise his veto (which he has said he will do on stem-cell research) and the Democrats do not have a sufficient majority to override any veto.
The Republican-controlled 109th Congress did not perform. It failed to act promptly on corruption within its own walls and, primarily because the White House is also in Republican hands, it failed to impose budgetary responsibility and failed to take the government to account for its disastrous Iraq policy.
The Democrats, with their power of subpoena, will be quick to set up rigorous investigative hearings on Iraq in the hope of scoring points. But what the Democrats will not do is propose an alternative policy for Iraq for the simple reason that the party does not have one. In addition, with both eyes on the White House elections next year, the Democrats will not want to seem excessively partisan, especially with US soldiers' lives at risk. But the hope must be that the increased influence of the US State Department will mean that Mr Bush will look for a political solution for Iraq and Palestine and seek dialogue with any country that might help deliver it.