WASHINGTON -- The House yesterday launched a 36-hour debate on the Iraq war, preparing for an end-of-the-week vote on a resolution that criticizes President Bush's decision to deploy an extra 21,500 troops.

The resolution, proposed by Democrats, is largely symbolic. But it seems likely to split Pennsylvania Republicans, with at least one -- Rep. Phil English of Erie -- voicing support. Two others, Rep. Tim Murphy of Upper St. Clair and Rep. Charles Dent of Allentown, haven't decided how they'll vote.

The debate comes at a time when 60 percent of Americans say they are against the president's strategy, according to a USA Today/Gallup Poll published yesterday.

All 435 House members will have a chance to speak for up to five minutes over the next several days. Democrats are hoping to pick up a significant number of Republican supporters.

Mr. English says he largely backs the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, which call for a firmer diplomatic approach. But if he sides with Democrats in this week's vote, he'll do so reluctantly. He slammed the party for preventing Republicans from presenting alternatives, including one that would oppose a halt to funding for troops on the battlefield.

"I'll probably vote for [the Democratic measure], but my vote will be rendered meaningless by the lack of opportunity to offer serious amendments," he said. "Certainly the people I represent want to see a full and fair debate."

Democrats counter that they don't want to muddle the House's message with competing proposals, pointing to gridlock in the Senate over the same issue in recent weeks.

"The only way to make a very clear, unambiguous statement was to say a Republican president has made a proposal and we are not in agreement with that proposal," said House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md.

Indeed, while one of the Senate's resolutions is several pages in length, the Democratic proposal in the House is two sentences:

"Congress and the American people will continue to support and protect the members of the United States Armed Forces who are serving or who have served bravely and honorably in Iraq; and Congress disapproves of the decision of President George W. Bush announced on January 10, 2007 to deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq."

Unlike the Senate, where the minority party can block a final vote, the House gives considerable power to the majority. When Republicans were in control, they similarly limited Democratic input on measures related to the Iraq war, Mr. Hoyer argued.

Public angst over the war helped Democrats capture a solid majority in the November election. They won four seats in Pennsylvania, defeating Melissa Hart of Bradford Woods and three Republicans in the eastern part of the state: Curt Weldon, Mike Fitzpatrick and Don Sherwood.

"I rise to give voice to hundreds of thousands of patriotic Pennsylvanians," said Rep. Patrick Murphy, a Democrat who defeated Mr. Fitzpatrick in a suburban Philadelphia district. "The president's present course is not resolute. It is reckless."

House Democrats gave some of their first speaking slots yesterday to veterans, including Mr. Murphy, who served in Iraq as a paratrooper with the 82nd Airborne Division.

Pennsylvania's other congressional representatives will take the House floor over the next several days. Rep. Tim Murphy said he wants to hear more from his colleagues before he decides how to vote, but he called for a real debate over strategy.

"Let's get out of the politics. Let's talk about what's best for the troops," he said.

"This vote is on a nonbinding resolution. It sends a message to Iraqis, to insurgents, and Iranians and terrorists and also to our soldiers."

Mr. Murphy said he met yesterday with ambassadors from Jordan and Egypt, who warned of a "catastrophe" if the United States pulls out of Iraq.

Rep. Mike Doyle, D-Forest Hills, predicts that all 11 Democrats from the state will back the resolution.

"More guns and more troops aren't going to force Sunnis and Shiites to share power," he said. "If we need a surge, it should be a diplomatic surge, not a military surge."

Many Republicans, including Rep. John Peterson, R-Venango, argued that Democrats who are serious about their opposition to the war should put forward concrete legislation, not a symbolic resolution.

That could happen in the coming weeks. Rep. John Murtha, D-Johnstown, has said he'll use his powers as the ranking House member in control of defense spending to force changes in the president's policies, setting up the potential for fierce partisan clashes.