WASHINGTON - Today's milestone vote in the House of Representatives opposing President Bush's troop increase in Iraq will be no cliff-hanger -- it's certain to pass -- but its potential political consequences have lawmakers grinding their teeth.

The nonbinding resolution could influence lawmakers' re-election prospects, their willingness to back stronger anti-war policies later and how other nations view the United States.

No one feels more pressure over the vote than the lawmakers -- mostly Republicans -- who won election in November by narrow margins.

Rep. Vern Buchanan, R-Fla., whose 369-vote margin is still being contested, said he had struggled over this vote for weeks as he met with intelligence experts, ambassadors and war veterans. He said he would announce his decision in a speech on the House floor.

Hayes is among the most vulnerable

Republicans in swing districts who do not back the resolution can expect to be attacked in elections next year. They include Reps. Deborah Pryce of Ohio, Dave Reichert of Washington state, Thelma Drake of Virginia and Robin Hayes of North Carolina. Each barely won re-election last November. This vote could end their careers.

"I think this is going to be a big issue for voters in 2008," said Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., the chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

Dozens of Republicans are expected to vote for the Democrats' resolution opposing the 21,500-troop increase. By crossing party lines, they could build support from independents and Democrats but could also court primary challenges.

A few Democrats from conservative districts are similarly torn. Rep. Jim Marshall, D-Ga., a Vietnam veteran narrowly re-elected, said he had long favored fewer troops in Baghdad but couldn't support a resolution that was "akin to sitting on the sidelines and booing in the middle of our own team's play because we don't like the coach's call."

Bush says the resolution won't change his plans no matter how many Republicans support it.

Next: A move to limit deployments

Once the vote clears, House Democrats intend to shift to binding legislation to limit troop deployments and funding.

Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., the chief House defense appropriator, detailed a plan Thursday that he hopes the full House can vote on by mid-March.

It would prohibit troop deployments in Iraq from being extended beyond a year, require troops to get at least one year home between deployments and require them to be certified as fully trained and equipped before going into combat. It also would end the "stop-loss" program that forced some service members to stay on active duty beyond their enlistment periods.

"That stops the surge for all intents and purposes," because the Pentagon would be short of troops if it followed the requirements, Murtha said.

House Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio said Murtha's proposal would hurt troops already there. He called it "unthinkable."

Get $150+ in coupons in every Sunday N&O. Click here for convenient home delivery.