"is rapidly degenerating into a 'broken' force."
I've heard this several times before from soldiers, but I'm glad that someone senior had the balls to say it. He's bound to go the route of Gen. Shinseki, who was called "wildly off the mark" by Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz, and let go after he had the audacity to say that securing Iraq after an invasion would require a force of approximately 200,000 troops.
Now, I know that a lot of you probably think that my take on Iraq is also "wildly off the mark", but I'm the "doomsayer" who said that Iraq's occupation could require 50-75,000 troops and was expected to take at least two years. Those numbers sound damn conservative nowadays.
I also said well before the invasion that Iraq either didn't posess chemical weapons, or had an arsenal that was severely limited in nature, and that "it could be a war fought by urban guerrillas, where US troops must fight through the streets of every major Iraqi city . . . followed by a lengthy, dangerous, expensive occupation and rebuilding process," and that "even if we ignore the cost in human lives . . . who can ignore the cost to our economy?"
It's depressing being right at times.