If you take away the better part of something, you only have a small part left. That's logic for you, right?
Pentagon Says Iraq Effort Limits Ability to Fight Other Conflicts
The officer, Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, informed Congress in a classified report that major combat operations elsewhere in the world, should they be necessary, would probably be more protracted and produce higher American and foreign civilian casualties because of the commitment of Pentagon resources in Iraq and Afghanistan.So, reading this, I understand that we have a lot of troops deployed already, and if something else should come up, we won't have as many soldiers to send to the new place. Does that mean we'd lose?
Despite the limitations, General Myers was unwavering in his assessment that American forces would win any major combat operation. The armed forces, he concluded, are "fully capable" of meeting all Washington's military objectives.So we wouldn't lose? Even with a gazillion (approx 140,000) troops deployed in Iraq, we could still kick yet another country's ass?
Though the general wrote that the military forces "will succeed in any" major combat operation, he added that "they may be unable to meet expectations for speed or precision as detailed in our current plans."Oh, now I get it - we can still kick their asses, but it would have to be slowly. Gotcha.
The article goes on to pretty much contradict itself and swear that we're not vulnerable. I do believe that we can defend ourselves, but let's face it, without a whole lot of gung-ho recruits,