About questioning reports

Last night, this article was released with the headline "Army Stretched to Breaking Point". Today it has been changed to "Deployments Stretching Army, Study Finds". (Damn, I wish I could take screen shots of this stuff.....)

So, which is it? (The text has changed very little if at all, I didn't think the text supported the former headline when I first read the article).

Another thing to question: The article states the study was produced "under a Pentagon contract". The author has apparently given an interview to the AP reporter. So, why is the author giving interviews in public for a Pentagon study? Has this study even been turned in to the Pentagon yet?

Yet another question is: Most Pentagon studies I am aware of produce three scenarios, best case, worst case and middle case. Is the study in question a part of that three-tiered approach? If so, which case is it? If not, why was the three-tiered approach not used in this instance?

Now obviously, I am not arguing that any large deployment will not stretch the Army's resources. That's virtually guaranteed with the way the military was restructured under Clinton. But stretching in time of war is expected. I know full well that the logistics resources of the Reserve and National Guard are really stretched at the moment. But was that unexpected? I think not. This article just states that "the Army" is stretched. But what parts of the Army? All of it or just certain groups?

Sorry, I think this is just more sloppy reporting meant to address a political agenda. It could have been a pretty good article with better reporting.