In this post (oh dear, getting to be a habit) I suggested a reason for why the 'more troops' argument about Iraq might have been misconceived. I retired hurt from the fray on that occasion as I overlooked one possible counter-argument (check out the comments). But logistical strain wasn't the only line of defence that the Administration might use. Sheer lack of men is a problem, and I'm glad to see Winds of Change pointing it out.
Of course, just because the 'insufficient troops' argument has attained the status of conventional wisdom doesn't mean it's wrong. But WoC seem to have grasped the essential thing - the 'rule of thirds'. One reason why the Administration hasn't defended itself more effectively from the charge is that they don't want to draw attention to just how stretched the US Army is. Iran and North Korea know, of course, but to hear the President, or any of his spokesmen, admit it would be entirely too encouraging to them.