[Cyrus]

I go by the following assumptions, which you are invited to dispute or disprove:

A - The war in Iraq is not a popular one in America. It has not been one for quite some time. It is not popular either among those eligible to serve in the military.

B - We read about and hear a lot of grumbling from the military brass circles that the manpower is lacking in Iraq "to do the job properly". We are also aware of the many (and early) complaints made in public by those that helped plan the war, eg the brass at Army War College, concerning the same issue. *

C - It is largely accepted that Donald Rumsfeld can be a very stubborn mule, also in matters where he is not supposed to be an expert, eg military planning. It is also a consensus across the political spectrum that wars are conducted witl political as ell as purely military objectives in mind.

D - While we can come to some agreement about how the political situation in Iraq is going forward, everybody seems to agree that the American troops are confronting an ongoing (and tough) insurrection there. Some say it's in its last throes, others say no way -- but most seem to agree that more boots on the ground would help confront the menace more efficiently, and not necessarily by just doing battle.

Bonus Fact - We do not have all the necessary statistics from the sites you linked to. I'd want to see, for each year and going back 5 years, "Targets" & "Numbers Achieved", at least.

Therefore, on the basis of all the above, I see no reason to alter my current position:

The American military in Iraq was not (and still is not) adequately manned to handle the post-victory problems.
Moreover, the problems (which were amplified by that poor planning) have put off a significant number of Americans, to the point of negatively affecting military recruitment.



--Cyrus

PS : There is the issue of the state of the economy, also (a strong economy for the lower tiers means better alternatives for young people than joining the military). I have not seen any data there.

* Yes, it is well known (especially on the Hill) that "the army is never satisfied"! For decades, the Pentagon has always insisted for more men, more weapons, and more money. However, the Cold War is over and also this is not about weapons procurement. It's "merely" the planning of a specific, local war. And, while the military is supposed to always be over-cautious, the discrepancy between what the military planners wanted for post-victory Iraq and what the military eventually got is too great to ignore.