Virgil wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in
oups.com:

Recently you stated that in your opinion the military could fight on
three fronts and not lose any capability. I thought you might be
interested in what the Pentagon had to say about it...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11009829/

I'm not sure I agree with this outside review of the Army. I returned from
Iraq after a year there and what I see now is an Army running on all
cylinders but not yet stretched to the breaking point. What I do see are
issues with the National Guard and Reserves, often less well-trained with
less esprit and with soldiers not as willing to put up with more than one
deployment. In one sense the Army's skills are probably now honed as well
as I've ever seen them in the fifteen years I've been in the active-duty
and Reserves, combat zones tend to do that.

Still this isn't exactly war... fighting on fronts means an organized
enemy you can go out and destroy. Obviously a task the Army is much
better suited for than securing the peace.
I have no doubt our combined military could take out 3 Iraqs but they
couldn't conduct 3 secure the peace/nation building excercises
simultaneously.

On a different note... I find it really amusing that people are crying
that Iraq is a mistake while Iran is the real enemy with their nuke
program. Strategically, I think taking on Iran militarily is much
more viable after having eliminated Husseins armies and opened 2 of
Irans borders to ground operations. I doubt it will come to that..
but if Hussein was still in place there'd be a danger he would throw
his armies into the fight.

ScottW