Andrew Greeley:: Bush is a picture of defeat

A useless surge....so why?

To drag out the quagmire so that it can be ceremoniously dumped into the lap of the next president?

Is it a prelude to an attack on Iran?

Is it a test of the New Congress? Put out the dumbest of all possible plans, just to see if the Congress will let them get by with it.

Congress should tell Junior that his war resolution of October 2002 is null and void.

CHICAGO SUN-TIMES :: Andrew Greeley :: Bush is a picture of defeat:

The presidential address last week was pathetic enough to make one feel sad for the poor dear man, as they say in the old country. With little emotional affect he read a lecture about his ''new strategy,'' which was in fact nothing more than a new tactic, growled at Iran and Syria, threatened the Iraqi government, and promised that the United States would emerge the winner in Iraq.

The notion that 20,000 more American troops would pacify Baghdad was farcical. If one really intended to stop internecine war between two religious tribes, one would have had to promise a lot more Americans. John Keegan, the famous English military historian and commentator, estimated that pacification would take 50,000 troops. Various American military experts suggested that it would require at least 100,000 soldiers and Marines. If one calculates two American soldiers or Marines for every 1,000 people in a city, as does the Army's counter-insurgency manual, 140,000 fighting men (which excludes the half of the troops in Iraq who are not combat soldiers) would be required.

The mountain labored and gave birth to a mouse.