redblueamerica.com

Foreign Policy and the Center for a New American Security have surveyed 3,400 current and retired officers about the state of the U.S. military, and the results aren't so hot:

These officers see a military apparatus severely strained by the grinding demands of war. Sixty percent say the U.S. military is weaker today than it was five years ago. Asked why, more than half cite the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the pace of troop deployments those conflicts require. More than half the officers say the military is weaker than it was either 10 or 15 years ago. But asked whether “the demands of the war in Iraq have broken the U.S. military,” 56 percent of the officers say they disagree. That is not to say, however, that they are without concern. Nearly 90 percent say that they believe the demands of the war in Iraq have “stretched the U.S. military dangerously thin.”

The upside, according to the report, is that most of the officers believe that military morale is still quite high. And a vast majority -- nine in 10 -- believe that victory in Iraq is possible.

What goes unasked, though, is whether a "victory" -- and once again, there's no clear definition of the term -- is worth it.

Let's put it this way. If, before the war, I told you that:

* We could "win" in Iraq, but;
* It would take the better part of a decade, and;
* Our military would be shedding officers and lowering entrance standards just to hold things together, and;
* We'd still end up with our defense forces "spread dangerously thin;"

... how enthusiastic would you have been for an invasion? I'm guessing a lot of people would have taken a second look at the options, even if they suspected that Iraq possessed WMDs.

That's why skepticism about our mission in Iraq is still deserved and necessary. The skepticism isn't just about whether we can win; it's about the worth of continuing to try.