By Kristin Roberts WASHINGTON, April 2 (Reuters) - The thinly stretched U.S. military said on Monday it would send thousands of troops back to Iraq ahead of schedule, as some lawmakers proposed cutting off funds for the increasingly unpopular war. The Defense Department said its decision to deploy 9,000 service members would allow commanders to maintain heightened force levels for the new Baghdad security crackdown through at least August. Two of the affected Army units, totaling about 4,500 troops, will return to combat short of their promised year at home, reflecting the strain placed on U.S. forces by commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan. One unit will deploy 81 days short of the year-long "dwell time" at home and the second will return 47 days short of a year, said Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman. "This is a reflection that this is a military that is in conflict," Whitman said. "We're obviously using a significant portion of the force, combat units of the force, and it's a reflection of the realities that exist right now." The Pentagon has increased troop levels in Iraq by about 30,000 in an attempt to regain control of security and reduce sectarian violence in Baghdad under President George W. Bush's new Iraq war policy, set earlier this year. The units announced on Monday largely replace forces already in Iraq, which number around 145,000. CONGRESS RAISES PRESSURE The Democrat-led Congress has ratcheted up pressure on Bush to withdraw troops from Iraq, defying his veto threat and passing measures that tie $100 billion in additional war funding to a pull-out deadline in 2008. Without those funds, the Pentagon will run out of money for the conflict in the coming months, although exactly when this would happen is in dispute. On Monday, U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid went a step further and proposed legislation to end all funding for the war by March 31, 2008, with certain exceptions for "limited" operations against al Qaeda, protecting U.S. personnel and training Iraqi security forces. Funding is the one of the few ways Congress can exercise direct control over the war, but it remains uncertain how much support Reid's proposal can win in the closely divided Senate. An aide to Kentucky Republican Mitch McConnell, the Senate minority leader, noted many senators have said they would not cut off funds for troops, even if they were unhappy with the war. Timetables on military action were dismissed by Vice President Dick Cheney, who repeated Bush's veto threat on Monday and said lawmakers supporting withdrawal deadlines were calling for a U.S. "retreat." "You cannot win a war if you tell the enemy you're going to quit," Cheney said. "It's nothing less than an attempt to force the president's hand," he said in remarks at a reception for a Republican senator. "They're going to find out that they've misread George W. Bush." Many lawmakers have pressed for an expanded role in war policy, requiring reports from the Pentagon and seeking consultation on military issues, and some have sought to build opposition through congressional hearings. But the U.S. constitution gives Congress a clear role only in funding operations, not in deciding military policy. (Additional reporting by Susan Cornwell)
