Little force behind U.S. tough talk

'We are stretched, really stretched,'' a senior U.S. Army combat commander told me. The 10 divisions that constitute the sole surviving superpower's fighting strength are scarcely able to handle today's responsibilities, much less a full-scale war in Iraq. What's more, a pre-emptive strike against Baghdad may only be the first of such military ventures.

Rep. Duncan Hunter of California, vice chairman and dominant Republican on the House Armed Services Committee, last week shined a light onto this nation's future pre-emptions. Questioned on CNN's ''Crossfire'' about military intervention in Iraq, Hunter said: ''The president understands this is a new era of what I call terrorists with high technology. I think we're going to have to make this decision over and over.''

He listed Libya as another nuclear threat, followed by other possible U.S. targets, adding: ''Iraq is the first take on that question.''

That alarms the uniformed military. These career officers, who are faithful to civilian supremacy in military affairs, do not question policy. What bothers them is lack of muscle to execute so muscular a global strategy. The concern is about quantity, not quality. Old-timers view today's volunteer soldiers as better trained and better motivated than their draftee predecessors. There are just not enough of them to meet demands.

Major troop assignments in Korea, Japan, Germany and elsewhere in Europe (well over 100,000) did not end with the Cold War. Fighting in Afghanistan will last a long time, and a U.S. presence is projected there even longer. Peacekeeping commitments in Bosnia (which were supposed to have ended five years ago) and Kosovo are open-ended. One battalion (830 troops) is assigned to the Sinai, requiring an additional battalion ready to go there and still another battalion coming back. Four divisions (around 60,000) are talked about at the outset for Iraq, with the possibility of many more to follow.

Stretched though the Army may be, no help is on the way. Defense Department sources know Congress will not approve any increase in manpower. On the contrary, decreases in weapons systems can be expected once the midterm elections are out of the way.