I think Rumsfield is proving to be much like Robt. S. McNamara in his taking the business model approach to the military. Unfortunately a war machine isn't a business it is a war machine that requires a tremedous amount of redundancy to meet its unforseen needs. The amounts of monies needed to support our military are staggering but pale in comparison to the damage that could be inflicted upon us by a successful military attack on the United States.
I don't think we need more personnal in Iraqi but I do believe we need a much larger military. In my opinion the only way to achieve the numbers we need is universal military service.
To take gound and hold it the only option is boots on the ground. Advanced technical weapons can do a great deal of damage but they can't root determined fighters out of the rubble. That job falls to the man and the rifle. Let's get our military back to at least eight hundred thousand active duty men and women.
I do agree that since 911, and the open declaration of war that extremists islamists have made against the US, our military needed strengthening. Actually, if Perot had not given the Presidency to Clinton, the military would have remained strong. We needed a draft for WWII. There was a pressing urgency and the foe was much tougher. If we take the nations supporting islamic extremists down sequentially, one at a time, the need for as draft may not be as pressing. We did however gamble a bit in Iraq. If the Turks and Iran would have sent troops over the borders or if Saddam would have utilized WMD on our troops, the initial troop levels would have been woefully inadequate. Thankfully, none of that occurred.