then why don't they do more to increase the size of the military*? After all, they cut the military over 30% during the 1990s. The military has to work with what they're given and that includes the SecDef.

Would it be better to have more troops in Iraq? Almost certainly. Where will we get them? We're already cutting the unnecessary deployments in Europe and even in South Korea. Still, there are only so many troops to go around. Generally, you can't maintain more than about 1/3rd of your troops in a combat zone for an extended amount of time. Troops currently there need to be rotated out periodically to rest, recouperate, and refit. Other troops need to be working up for deployment to replace the ones currently there. Even in WWII, the US military worked hard to rotate units off of the line from time to time. Combat stress is accumulative and even the most hardened soldiers need a break from time to time or they're likely to crack.

As an example, in 2003, over 10,000 troops from nearby Fort Carson went to Iraq for a year. They returned last March through May. Already, some of them have returned and thousands more will be returning in the coming months. In the meantime, they've spent some time with their families getting some much needed rest, they've repaired their vehicles and equipment, and they're updated their training. The same thing has been happening at Army (and Marine) bases all over the country.

*Congress did authorize a temporary increase of some 20,000 soldiers for the Army but it'll take some time to bring them in, train them, equip them, and do get them ready for deployment. Building up troop strength is a lot harder than reducing it.