Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: unclewest who wrote (52874)	7/5/2004 2:36:30 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793804

Think about this. We are recalling 5,000-7,000 folks who have done their duty. We are also now alerting reserve and National Guard units for second tours in Iraq and Afghan. I find this just horrible. Enough is enough for anyone serving. Take the monthly projected enlistment figure, subtract soldiers with an ETS that month and subtract projected casualties. I still don't see how the draft helps you regulate month to month. If you had enough enlistees, you could do the same thing, just defer some of them until you need them to even things out. The only thing the draft gives you is greater total numbers. You control the numbers rather than being dependent on vagueries of the recruiting process. It looks to me like your explanation is based on the assumption that there won't be enough volunteers and what you're really doing with the draft is increasing the numbers. Which is a fine reason. Just not the way you originally framed it, which didn't makes sense, which is why I asked. Based on your explanation, it seems to be about numbers, not flexibility.