In his address to the nation last week and in an interview with 60 Minutes last night, President George W. Bush vowed to pursue his aggressive troop surge in Iraq and said he does not need congressional approval to do so.

“I fully understand they could try to stop me from doing it. But I’ve made my decision. And we’re going forward,” Bush told 60 Minutes correspondent Scott Pelley during their interview from Camp David last night.

However, the New York Times reports that American and Iraqi officials have spent days trying to put together a strategy to carry out Bush’s new plan for Iraq, and have encountered a range of problems “that some fear could hobble the effort before it begins.”

The U.S. military already reports a large increase of police recruits in Anbar province, a hotbed of Sunni insurgent activity. In the last couple of weeks, more than 1,000 Iraqi citizens have applied for police jobs in Ramadi, and 800 joined last month.

This is a huge increase from just a few months ago, when the President was still debating a policy shift. Military leaders say the key to this increase is the growing support of local tribal leaders.

But there is little time to come up with a strategy, so American officials are trying to work one quickly. The problem is, they’re facing resistance from Iraqis on a number of key points, one of which is whether the Iraqi government truly has the desire to crack down on Shiite militias.

The feeling that Iraqis may not be committed to that cause - which Bush admitted last night - was exacerbated when Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki appointed a virtual unknown to the position of operational commander of Baghdad operations.

As one American military official tells USA Today under the condition of anonymity, “We are implementing a strategy to embolden a government that is actually part of the problem.”

After all, both armies are supposed to work together, but there are some very serious questions of whether the American forces would be willing to share power with Iraqi troops. The plan also calls for the National Police to play a large part, but some say they have been “dragging their feet” on establishing their role in the overall operation.

Money to send more troops over to Iraq shouldn’t be a problem, according to national security adviser Stephen J. Hadley, who tells ABC News that the 2007 budget should be able to cover their needs.

On another Sunday talk show, Vice President Dick Cheney recognized that the House of Representatives maintains power over the budget, but says anything Congress does won’t influence the Bush administration’s policy because “you cannot run a war by committee.”

The Washington Post quotes the vice president saying he has yet to hear a coherent policy out of the Democratic side regarding an alternative to the increase in troops.

The Los Angeles Times offers the same view, but also addresses the fact that Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) has talked about his alternative, similar to what was proposed by the recent Iraq Study Group.

There is without question, however, evidence of the split among Democratic leaders on how they should respond to Bush’s new plan for Iraq. Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) wants to move forward with the non-binding resolution expressing disapproval with the plan, but opposes cutting off funding for the war.

Meanwhile, Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.), who was Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi’s top choice for Majority Leader, said he would try to prevent the last two U.S. brigades from going to Iraq in April and May.

As for Republican reaction - especially those who want to run for the White House - it not entirely easy to gain sentiment. While most of the American public opposes the plan, 67 percent of Republicans say they favor sending more troops to Iraq.

At least for the moment, potential candidates such as Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) have managed to support the war without being linked to its sagging popularity - a high-wire act that can only continue for so long.