NOTE FROM MARIA MIAMI, STAFFWRITER

Something has to be said for Pres. Bush "surging"
21,500 troops into Bagdad & Anbar. Okay, I'll say
a brief word or two: The biggest diff it will make is
our casualties & the casualties of the civilians of
Bagdad & Anbar will rise. Nothing of political
gravity will transpire other that more Arabs will
hate us & more Americans will wonder why they
trusted the man with the big L on his forehead
one more time.

Last June Pres. Bush "surged" 15,000 troops
to stop the Iranian mullahs from doing what
we didn't want them to do, the Shia & Sunnies
would blood bathe each other if we didn't move
in, plus we had to halt the "mass killings" from
reaching an "unimaginable scale". There was
more of the same, but you get the idea.

Know what happened? The Iranian Mullahs did
what they wanted to do, the Shia & the Sunnies
set records for blood bathing each other and the
"mass killings " reached an "unimaginable" scale.

Questions for Pres. Bush: Bagdad is a city of over
6 million. How many of our present forces are
combat & how many are support troops. What
ratio are the 21,500 you are sending over. Two
military analysts tell me the "clean out and HOLD
the positions" would require a surge of 150 to
200,000. Mr. President, this is the 4th surge
in 4 years, all have failed. Why is this different?

My personal observation: sending 21,500 troops
to Bagdad & Anbar when 200,000 are needed
to do the job is like pissing in the Mississippi.


Hey Maria: Thanks so much for your thoughts.
They are right on point. See you soon. SJ