The size of the military was adjusted downward in the late 80's/early 90's because the demographics no longer supported it. This was an often discussed subject in the early 80's. As the recruiting pool shrunk, more MOS's were open to woman and the number of active divisions was decreased.

This is not just a problem for the US, it is even more of a problem for the Europeans.

I'm a Navy CPO (retired Sept.1997) who has tried since 40 minutes after 911 happened to get back in the military. The Navy has denied my request since I'm "retired". Hey I'm 48 but in damn good condition being an Aircraft Rescue Firefighter/Paramedic since I left the fleet. The other day I went to talk with the National Guard, I told them I'd take a reduction in rank,I WANT to attend boot camp whatever it would take. I was told there are alot of men like me both retired military and those who never thought of serving until reality set in on that terrible September day almost four years ago. But the Feds say absolutely not. Hey at least we could fill billets let the young ones get some better home time. It would also show that we're in this thing together. This war won't be going away for a long time, the sooner people realize it's all our fight the better.

Actually, if you were a cynic, you would suspect that they want the proposal passed so that the recruitment targets have to increase and any resulting shortfall looks worse.

I agree with Karl. When it concerns the jr. Senator from New York, I am very cynical.

They want to raise the troop levels even with the knowledge that the Army cannot currently meet it's recruiting goals with an end game of creating a need for a draft.

These people(liberals in Congress) are doing their level best to compare this current war(read quagmire) to Vietnam(read quagmire). The thing that made Vietnam so unpopular with this crowd and those of their ilk was the draft.

Mrs. Clinton understands what effect a draft would have with the electorate. And since a Republican got us into Iraq....

Not to mention the effect of "watering down" our warrior forces with men who obviously have no desire to serve their country.
Especially all the good little liberals who have been indoctrinated by academentia in this country.

I hope I'm wrong, but I can only trust Hilary about as far as I could throw her "missing" file box of Rose Law Firm billing records.

Matt,

I dunno. I'll give Lieberman the benefit of the doubt. He ran a far classier campaign than any of the other democrats, and didn't take the cheap shots against Bush when he could have.

f

OOps... thougth I was at blackfive. "Matt" shoudl be "greyhawk."

f

I don't mind at all raising the size of the Army, nor in raising the pay and benefits in order to attract the extra recruits.

To pay for it we can start by transferring all monies spent on paying for abortions and for funding the innumerable left-wing activist groups we are taxed for now. We can also defund anything we're paying for that has Senator Byrd's name on it.

If this is a Democrat bluff to play politics with the Army at a time of war, let's call their bluff and raise them 80,000 troops and fewer left-wing activists.

I think this might be a step in the right direction in correcting her husbands big mistake of drawing down the military in the first place.

We would have this much of a force fatigue peoblem if we still were at the pre-drawdown levels. the reseves wouldn't be as taxed and Active units wouldn't be coming over as often.