During Vietnam, the Army famously wasn't willing to wreck their conventional capabilities to win that war. The Soviets at the Fulda Gap loomed over every decision. Sadly, even though we defeated the enemy in Vietnam anyway, only to have Congress cut off Saigon from military aid and assistance, we did wreck our conventional army. It took more than 10 years of effort to restore the Army to fighting trim.
So I've always been willing to risk breaking the Army to win the war in Iraq. Defeat would wreck the Army anyway, and at least victory doesn't sap the morale of troops who wonder why they risked their lives for a nation that was willing to send them to war but not willing to stick it out until victory. I'd rather rebuild a broken but victorious Army than a defeated and broken Army.
We seem to have managed to win a war and prepare for the next one. The new brigade-based Army is experienced, well-armed, well-led, and equipped with excellent weapons. Once relieved of the Iraq fight and rebalanced for conventional warfare, it will reclaim its edge in conventional warfare, as Strategy page writes:
This "reform and reorganize on the run" approach has enabled the U.S. Army to leap way ahead of its contemporaries in terms of combat effectiveness. This is causing lots of unease in the military headquarters of the other major military powers.
Our potential enemies are right to fear getting in our way.
Strategypage has a good overview of this transition. I'll correct only one thing, the Army is expanding to 48 brigades and not to 43. The initial conversion effort within the old end strength added 9 brigades to our base of 33, and Army expansion is adding 6 more.
I love it when a plan comes together.
