In purely military terms, the second article is indeed correct. Saddam's military was woefully unable to resist the US on the battlefield; the invasion was indeed a cakewalk.
What it fails to address, though, is the post-invasion requirements for setting up a new regime in Iraq; call it an occupation and be honest. That's where the 100,000 troops figure comes from; the crying need for swarms of MPs to maintain order while notables in Iraqi society (helped by hordes of civil affairs people) build a government that can provide some modicum of, to steal from my own country's founding document, "peace, order, and good government."
It's the failure to consider the latter that's led to the extended tours of combat troops today.
-- Steve would cheerfully begin the necessary exercise regimen if he was guaranteed the right to Patton-slap every single policy wonk who assumed that a just and honest post-dictatorial government would spontaniously appear after the gunships landed.
P.S. Still seriously pissed of at the Bushites for leaving Afghanistan half-done to pursue their Saddam-o-phobia.