ARMY TOO SMALL?

The debate continues.

In the wake of the bombing of U.N. headquarters in Iraq, and with fatalities among U.S. forces continuing to mount, key lawmakers are suggesting that more U.S. troops may be needed to quell what has become a guerrilla war.

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld says no more U.S. troops are needed, but a number of military experts think the Pentagon might soon run out of combat soldiers to send in any case.

"I don't think any of us anticipated the amount and sophistication of these attacks," Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said in an interview from Iraq hours after the U.N. bombing Tuesday. "I think they may need more people, both in the military generally and perhaps here on the ground."

Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, agreed: "I'm increasingly concerned we don't have enough soldiers and Marines to do all the jobs that must be done."

The Bush administration is currently focused on getting additional troops from other countries -- some 20,000 are now active in Iraq -- and on training more Iraqis to take over security duties.

If these efforts are not successful, however, and if the violence does not subside so that 40,000 to 50,000 troops can be withdrawn by next spring or summer, the U.S. Army could be seriously overstretched, analysts say.

"Rumsfeld and the Army are taking a gamble every bit as audacious as the war plan against Saddam Hussein," said retired Army Lt. Col. Andrew Krepinovich, director of the Center for Strategic and Budget Alternatives, a think tank in Washington, D.C. "They are betting that somehow they will break the back of the resistance by early next year."

Retired Army Maj. Gen. William Nash, who commanded U.S. peacekeepers in Kosovo, said an additional four brigades (about 25,000 combat troops) are needed to supplement the 146,000 U.S. troops already in Iraq.