Sure, but a basic premise of US military planning since the end of the Cold War has been to retain the ability to fight two medium-sized (ie, Gulf War-sized) wars simultaneously on different continents. The Afghan campaign is a lot smaller than the Gulf War, so that's why I think believe the military's testimony to Congress overstated their need.

The "Clinton drawdown" is generally overstated in the press -- in constant dollars we spent about the same as we did from the mid-to-late 80s through the end of the Clinton administration. I think the current Bush proposal is about right, actually. Adding some 50 billion dollars to the budget gives the military room to conduct military operations without having to gut R&D or infrastructure work.

Throwing money at the Pentagon is not guaranteed to produce better results, anymore than throwing money at the local school board will produce more educated students. Better organization and tighter oversight are needed to make sure the money flows where it's needed. Fortunately, Donald Rumsfeld both understands this and has a rep as a truly vicious bureacratic infighter, so I'm modestly hopeful that we will see value for our tax dollars.