Waging war on the cheap means fewer troops, and fewer families enduring what is inherient in military service...which is, military service. This generation(rightly or wrongly)value college football scores over their commitment to the armed services, and moms and dads don't like it when their sons or daughters are asked to live up to their commitments they exchanged for an education. So, in the interest of public opinion, a good case can be made for the push to fight a modern war with fewer troops(and casualities). I think it was more a commitment of different resources, rather then least resources possible" one that scaled back on troop numbers. Aspects like prisoner supervision, we have learned, cannot endure such resource cuts. Had larger numbers of troops been commited, the media would have focused on the commiting of all those sons and daughters, and we all know what happened during the Viet Nam war.

Bush makes the final decision, probably with consultation, but the buck stops there.

Not a chance that is was not based on the least possible rather than different. These is an entire neo-con economic theory, the core beleif system of the administration, behind this military theory which has been proven a failure economically. While it is true that the military by definition is a very crude tool, there is no doubt that the Powell plan that was rejected would have been more effective even if more resource laden. It is unlikely that it would have been more expensive, however, as it would have not had all the so-called "unplanned" aspects.

Even if we accept Wayne's proposition that, the Rumsfeld plan was done to limit the military casualties and thereby improve the publicity (in comparison to the Vietnam War) it fails on that account, as well. There have been way more casualties than anticipated and the approval numbers for the Iraq Invasion continue to go down as the occupation drags on. Its been a tactical and a PR bust. Moreover, weren't the resources talked about in the Powell plan beyond merely personnel i.e. it proposed more bombs, tanks and technology not just people?

How many casualties were officially anticipated? I am interested in the number to which you refer. It is my understanding Franks anticipated the use of weapons of mass destruction on his troops, (even tho this turned out false), so I suspect your call about anticipated troop loss as being lower than the 900 or so suffer to date, is quite wrong.

"Dragging on" is a relative term as even the Marshall Plan was not implemented in a day...again, a realistic defination of "Dragging On" is something the media and this generation has no understanding of, it is all just fast food, high speed, right now. Common sense tells us now, as it told military planners last year, this was not a 3-week vacation in the gulf. It was a long term commitment.

I am going to buy Tommy's book this week. I am sure it outlines there that the number of troops was not "limited", the battlefield commanders were not requesting more troops, and that troop loss estimates were about right. An argument that overall troop numbers were wrong soley based on the wrong numbers assigned to prisoner supervision is a little misleading, to say the least.

Christ, they flew across the desert at Olympic speed. I think it is the new way to wage war, with predators, satellites and fight around the clock. More boots on the ground were not requested, you guys are just Monday-morning quarterbacking, and you are all wrong...again!

Colin Powell...Wayne...Colin Powell...Wayne...who to trust...hmmmm...

"Officially anticipated"? The Pentagon hasn't shared their numbers with me, but if you're asking about "anticipated" in the sense of "public anticipations based on hype/information presented by the Bush administration about how fast the war was going to be won and how easy the occupation was going to be" then I'll still stick with the argument that there have been more than anticipated. You can't fault the public for believing the hype that was fed them.

As for "dragging on", well, I do recall Bush declaring "victory" some months ago well in advance of all this trouble in Najaf with the rebel Shi-ites. "Dragging on" is a subjective term, but again, given the hype about declaring "victory" in contrast to the bombings and deaths and unrest that have continued, I don't think its an unfair term.

The initial surge across the desert to Baghdad was an impressive display and may have been just the right thing to takeover Iraq. But was it the right thing to maintain an on-going peaceful occupation? You're right, hindsight is 20-20.

Interesting to note this morning on NPR a former Defence Sec't (Slessenger?) reviewing the Rumsfeld resoonsibilities as pointed out and it was all praise for the shock and awe of the speedy entry to Bahgdad. The quick transformation to the stall and stagnate with under-supply was not given such praise. There is no point having a rapid deployment and a bridgehead if no flood of the grunts and supplies that should follow. Think of the months after D-day when the same door pried open was used to move millions in. <p>Now think of Iraq. The US could not withdraw if it wanted to without massive losses or an infusion of new forces to perform the withdrawal safely. It has also not established the public infrastructure that was promised or civil security. This is all part of Rumsfeld's plan and he should be held to account for doing it. It should also be recognized that he is doing based on an economic theory, not a military one, and that theory has failed in its first exemplification in war - not a failure in the taking of the place but a failure in the next step of fulfilling the goals the swift taking was supposed to permit. Great way to set up a the Iraqi civil war of 2005 to 2010 but little else.