In an article in the Journal today, Fred Kagan warns that the U.S. military lacks resources for the war.

Without passing comment on his general thesis, I have to take exception to this comment:

"...the importance of our missions in Bosnia and Kosovo should be allowed to slip from view, either. One of the purposes our forces serve there is to protect Muslims from Serbian attack. A pullout would mean that Slavs would again begin harming Muslims. Considering the precipitous rise in tensions between the U.S. and the Muslim world, is this the time to run that particular risk?

What risk? They've shown no gratitude, or even recognition of what we've done for Muslims in the Balkans. If we need the troops to fight where there's actually a threat to us, pull 'em out of there. Let the Europeans spend some of that money they've had to build welfare states because we've been defending them for sixty years, to clean up the mess in their own back yard.

[Monday 1:25PM PDT update]

Reader "Pouncer" suggests:

If, in fact, the US is short resources to fight a major war, the "first domino" to kick over among Axis of Evil adversaries should be--North Korea.

We keep some 30,000 troops tied up there enforcing a cease fire at the DMZ. We've done so for 50 years. A very strong ally with major strategic interest in keeping the North Koreans under control is trained, rested, and ready to act under U.S. guidance. (That would be, unlike Northern Alliance or Kurdis irregulars, the actual ARMY of the nation of South Korea.)

The army is often charged with making plans "to fight the last war." To the extent that's true, there must be libraries full of plans to topple North Korea--hundreds of scenarios already wargamed out. Picking one may be a challenge, but any of the best ten of a hundred is likely to be okay.

Kick over North Korea, free up 29,700 U.S. fighting men (assuming about 1% casuality rates). Demonstrate resolve. Take the spotlight off the Middle East. Show Mainland China that we can be serious when the mood strikes us...

Then move the focus back on Iraq. If, that is, such a place still exists by the time the Israelis get through.

That's not a bad idea, except that they're probably worried about China's reaction. The last time we tried that, we ended up facing Chinese troops, and it's not unthinkable that the same could happen again. Of course, the difference is that China is not as enamored with NK as it used to be, and Russia has very little love for it, so we might be able to pull it off.

It's too bad that we've kept Japan toothless for so long--it would be a lot easier to let them do the job, as their contribution to the war. But I suspect that would reopen too many old wounds from the last time they invaded Korea, with less benign intent.

If, in fact, the US is short
resources to fight a major war,
the "first domino" to kick over
among Axis of Evil adversaries
should be -- North Korea.

We keep some 30,000 troops tied up
there enforcing a cease fire at
the DMZ. We've done so for 50 years.
A very strong ally with major strategic
interest in keeping the North Koreans
under control is trained, rested,
and ready to act under U.S. guidance.
(That would be, unlike Northern
Alliance or Kurdis irregulars, the
actual ARMY of the nation of South
Korea.)

The army is often charged with making
plans "to fight the last war." To
the extent that's true, there must
be libraries full of plans to topple
North Korea -- hundreds of scenarios
already wargamed out. Picking one
may be a challenge, but any of the
best ten of a hundred is likely to be
okay.

Kick over North Korea, free up 29,700
U.S. fighting men (assuming about 1%
casuality rates). Demonstrate resolve.
Take the spotlight off the Middle
East. Show Mainland China that we
can be serious when the mood strikes
us ...

then move the focus back on Iraq. If,
that is, such a place still exists
by the time the Israelis get thru.

The last stalinist dictator removed from power was done so by his own people. Put agianst a wall and shot. NK is very fragile a little stir by the CIA and you may not need a army.

I would also put foward the view that war has radically changed in the last decade. Far few troops are needed to accomplish the same thing.

To modify T.R. quote-
The most dangerous weapon on earth is a marine and his rifle and now his GPS device.

The one soldier today can "paint" a target and attack it with a wide range of artillery and air weapons with unheard of accuracy.

Now having said that I don't think we should go chunking our tanks but the nature of war is changing.