- Jul 2008
It is significant, but also significant is the fact that it wasn't the same army with the same technology.To tell you the truth, I wasn't even thinking about Arab countries... Anyway, good points. It seems that the US Army was about 33% larger in 1991 than 2003. That at least, is pretty significant.
I was just throwing out the idea of a larger US military as something to think about, because in the present war 10-20 thousand troops seem to make a pretty big difference.
The ten year span between the two wars was huge for the military technology, consider how much we spend and how long ten years is when you're spending that much. Also consider that during this time, the Iraqi army wasn't revamping, it was rotting.
I suppose it would be more significant in terms of the post-war occupation, if there were one.