"...the demand for Rumsfeld's scalp is also predicated on supposedly too few troops in the theater. But here too the picture is far more complicated. Vietnam was no more secure with 530,000 American soldiers in 1968 than it was with 24,000 in 1972. How troops are used, rather than their sheer numbers, is the key to the proper force deployment — explaining why Alexander the Great could take a Persian empire of 2 million square miles with an army less than 50,000, while earlier Xerxes with 500,000 on land and sea could not subdue tiny Greece, one-fortieth of Persia's size."
As always, his column is rich with history.
"In reality, he [Rumsfeld] has carefully allotted troops in Iraq because he has few to spare elsewhere — and all for reasons beyond his control."
Precisely. We can't blame Rumsfeld for issues that are beyond his control.
"And who pushed to re-deploy thousands of troops out of Europe, and to re-station others in Korea? Or were we to keep ossified bases in perpetuity in the logic of the Cold War while triangulating allies grew ever-more appeasing to our enemies and more gnarly to us, their complacent protectors?"
No, sir. It's about time those soldiers in Europe moved out. I found it particularly rich of the, oh-so-anti-American, Germans to complain about American troops leaving. Yeah, they're perfectly willing to take American dollars while providing idiotic and acidic commentary to the Americans. Serves them right.
Go read it all now.