I'm not certain what aspect of my reply you're disagreeing with. Are you saying that it's not true that we've been maintaining the ability to fight more than tw

I'm not certain what aspect of my reply you're disagreeing with. Are you saying that it's not true that we've been maintaining the ability to fight more than two wars? Assuming that's the point... Your reply seems focused on the quantity of soldiers. This is an important factor, but I was primarily considering overall spending, which obviously includes lots of capital expense, logistical stuff, etc., aside from the personnel. I believe that the level of investment in military hardware and the like is significantly higher than would be required for a successful war on two fronts (assuming that there exists such a thing as "successful war" these days).