Iraq War: is this a surge or an escalation?

Today Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced he was extending tours of duty in Iraq for troops deploying soon and for troops already there, from 12 months to 15 months. The policy is intended to guarantee 12 month stays at home between deployments, a necessary step with the recent addition of more than 20,000 troops to Baghdad in hopes of securing the city.

So is this really an escalation of the war?
The troop "surge," which some soldiers opposed, was suggested as a short-term solution to the rising violence in Baghdad. However, extending deployments in order to maintain troop levels suggests that this surge is longer-lasting. That's an escalation.

Other Iraq questions roundup:

1. Is there any reason why, coming in to the fifth year of the Iraq War, we are still funding this through "emergency appropriations"? This analysis from the Republican staff on the Senate Budget Committee looks at the complex definition of emergency and the overuse of the term for many spending items. One excerpt:
   

Labeling war costs as an emergency is not consistent with the President’s proposed statutory definition: while the 2007 and 2008 costs of the war may be necessary and ultimately not permanent, they are not sudden, urgent, and unforeseen, since the war in Afghanistan commenced in November 2001 and the war in Iraq commenced February 2003.

2. Just when does President Bush have to start answering the "do you support the troops?" question? The President has threatened to veto the Iraq spending bill (bill summary - pdf) that Democrats have ushered through Congress because he doesn't want deadlines. Is he failing the troops by vetoing the money they need to keep fighting? Let's say the Democrats send a second bill with deadlines to the President later this spring when the Pentagon is much closer to running out of money for the war (July, by the way). President Bush can still support the troops and get them the money he needs, he just has to compromise. Of course, there's also the theory that "you can't hurt a troop by defunding a war." So really, Bush can support the troops by signing or vetoing the appropriations bill.