"TODAY'S FORCE IS OVERCOMMITTED"

Next let's examine the track record of guerrilla war. The guerrilla fighter is, of course, a staple of left-wing romanticism. Mao, Ho, Fidel, Che — these constitute the pantheon of "peoples' war." But it is hard to point to a case in which guerrillas were successful without outside support and the existence of a conventional force of some sort. The guerrillas in Iraq lack both. Rooting them out will be a matter of time. Patience is the key.

The issue of troop strength in Iraq has been a major source of misunderstanding. When critics claim that the Army is too small to do what is necessary in Iraq, they don't necessarily mean that the force in country is too small, but that the Army as a whole is stretched so thin to meet vastly expanded requirements, not only in Iraq but throughout the globe, that readiness problems will begin to undercut military effectiveness.

The Army is especially concerned about recruiting shortfalls and the potential loss of noncommissioned officers, which are very likely to adversely affect the Army's performance down the road.

Those who say the Army should not do peacekeeping in a reconstructed Iraq are wrong.

War termination is an important objective, and a favorable outcome in Iraq requires that the United States stay the course. Prospects for success are good. Even a pessimist, as long as he was objective, would have to concede that Iraq is by no means a quagmire. The situation in Iraq is progressing, despite setbacks.

But the health of the United States Army is in the balance. Today's force is overcommitted and the strains are beginning to show.

Not sure I agree that the guerillas in Iraq lack both outside support and a conventional force of some sort. Seems to me that Iran qualifies as the outside support, and the porous borders of postwar Iraq could lead to the organization of conventional forces.

Still, I agree with the overall premise. The forces are overcommitted.

Witness the news reports saying we are prepared to send Marines to Liberia. By definition and design, Marine forces are designed to be light, lethal and temporary. Marines don't plan to be anywhere longer than 30 to 60 days. Even their food rations reflect this truism.

Yet news reports say Marines will probably be the force to land in Liberia.

In my mind the message here is that (A) we don't plan to be there long (aka we are doing this for show) or (B) we don't have the forces needed to commit to the long term.

Just my opinion, but to me we have no compelling national interest to protect in Liberia. Yeah, they named their capital after President Monroe, but...well, so what?

And therefore, in my opinion we get into the business of "exemplary participation" meaning we send soldiers to areas of the world just as volunteers flock to Habitat for Humanity building sites.

I'm not criticizing Habitat for Humanity...I once was an officer in one of its chapters. But the point is I volunteered because I "wanted to help"

Clearly we do not have sufficient military forces to send them to places where it is nice to want to help...indeed it is not clear we have sufficient forces to involve ourselves seriously in places where we have a decided national interest..