The United States will probably need to deploy more troops to Afghanistan despite almost doubling the size of its force there this year, the top U.S. military officer said on Tuesday.

The assessment by Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was the clearest signal yet that commanders will tell President Barack Obama in the coming weeks that they need extra forces to defeat Taliban insurgents.

"A properly resourced counterinsurgency probably means more forces. And, without question, more time and more commitment to the protection of the Afghan people and to the development of good governance," Mullen said.

Mullen did not say how many more forces would be required but he said he expected a request in the next couple of weeks from U.S. Army General Stanley McChrystal, the top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan.

Testifying before the U.S. Senate's Armed Services Committee, Mullen stressed the United States faced a race against the clock to reverse its fortunes in Afghanistan, where insurgent violence has reached its highest level since the Taliban was ousted from power in late 2001.

"I have a sense of urgency about this. I worry a great deal that the clock is moving very rapidly," he said.

The United States currently has 62,000 troops in Afghanistan and that figure is expected to rise to 68,000 by the end of the year. There were around 32,000 U.S. troops in the country at the start of the year.

There are also some 38,000 troops from other nations -- mainly NATO allies -- in Afghanistan.

The poll suggests that 23 percent of Democrats support the war. That number rises to 39 percent for independents and 62 percent for Republicans.

"Most of the recent erosion in support has come from within the GOP," said Keating Holland, CNN's polling director. "Unlike Democrats and independents, Republicans still favor the war, but their support has slipped eight points in just two weeks."

Senator John McCain, the committee's senior Republican, urged the Obama administration to learn from the Iraq war -- where extra U.S. forces helped quell violence -- and quickly deploy more troops to Afghanistan.

"Every day we delay in implementing this strategy and increasing the number of troops there -- which we all know is vitally needed -- puts more and more young Americans who are already there ... in danger," McCain said.

"You can support the troops but not the president."
-Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)

"Well, I just think it's a bad idea. What's going to
happen is they're going to be over there for 10, 15,
maybe 20 years."
-Joe Scarborough (R-FL)

"Explain to the mothers and fathers of American
servicemen that may come home in body bags why their
son or daughter have to give up their life?"
-Sean Hannity, Fox News, 4/6/99

" President . . . is once again releasing
American military might on a foreign country with an
ill-defined objective and no exit strategy. He has
yet to tell the Congress how much this operation will
cost. And he has not informed our nation's armed
forces about how long they will be away from home.
These strikes do not make for a sound foreign policy."
-Sen Rick Santorum (R-PA)

"American foreign policy is now one huge big mystery.
Simply put, the administration is trying to lead the
world with a feel-good foreign policy."
-Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)

"If we are going to commit American troops, we must be
certain they have a clear mission, an achievable goal
and an exit strategy."
-Karen Hughes, speaking on behalf of George W Bush

"I had doubts about the bombing campaign from the
beginning . . . I didn't think we had done enough in
the diplomatic area."
-Senator Trent Lott (R-MS)

"I cannot support a failed foreign policy. History
teaches us that it is often easier to make war than
peace. This administration is just learning that
lesson right now. The President began this mission
with very vague objectives and lots of unanswered
questions. A month later, these questions are still
unanswered. There are no clarified rules of
engagement. There is no timetable. There is no
legitimate definition of victory. There is no
contingency plan for mission creep. There is no clear
funding program. There is no agenda to bolster our
over-extended military. There is no explanation
defining what vital national interests are at stake.
There was no strategic plan for war when the President
started this thing, and there still is no plan today"
-Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)

In a sharp challenge to President Clinton, the House voted Wednesday to bar the President from sending ground troops to Yugoslavia without Congressional approval and then on a tie vote refused to support NATO air strikes against Serbia.

The votes came during a day of heated and sometimes anguished speeches that showcased deep divisions in Congress over the escalating conflict in the Balkans. The all-day session marked the first formal Congressional debate since NATO began its bombing campaign on March 24 to drive the forces of the Yugoslav President, Slobodan Milosevic, out of Kosovo. The Senate had voted on March 23 to approve the air strikes.

The House voted 249 to 180 to require the President to seek Congressional approval for ground forces. Forty-five Democrats and an independent joined 203 Republicans to support the measure. Sixteen Republicans and 164 Democrats opposed the bill.

But the surprise came when the House finished its deliberations this evening by failing to pass a Democratic resolution intended to give symbolic support to the President's air campaign. The measure failed in a tie vote of 213 to 213 even though Speaker J. Dennis Hastert threw his support behind it. In all, 31 Republicans broke with their party to back the air campaign and 26 Democrats voted against it.