cut the strength of the Army in half. They did that. I believe that's properly called "You get what you pay for." Or are willing to pay for...

War is an art, not a science but it does take 'X' people to do 'Y' job. If the Army cannot be expanded rapidly enough to provide those additional people in the required skills, substitutes must be found. It could not but we found some. It works.

Whether the Army should have been committed to do a job it was not able to do properly is another issue but that is a political question for other venues. For here, that issue is irrelevant. We're there.

Possibly the Army in the 1989-2001 period misspent money and effort. It did not properly structure and train for the jobs it was likely to have to do. Those are both political and military questions but other than as an indicator of failures on many levels as a cautionary factor -- and hopefully a significant lesson learned at the highest levels for the near future -- that's also sort of immaterial. We are where we are.

Congressional posturing on Iraq (both sides) is not about Iraq, it is not about the taxpayers, it is not about the Troops nor is it about Contractors -- it is about the 2008 elections.