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: LindyBill who wrote (189940)	12/20/2006 3:21:28 AM
From: unclewest	Read Replies (5) \| Respond to of 793964

Infantry: Things That Really Matter Strategy Page December 18, 2006: "The 1970s saw the end of conscription, and an all-volunteer force. Professional infantry are, all things being equal, much more effective than conscripts." I don't know anyone including myself that disagrees with that conceptually. BUT... Many are now calling for an increase in the size of our military. nypost.com I maintain that cannot be done without the draft. Including initial enlistment bonuses of up to $40,000, nearly $20,000 in annual salary and an $80,000 educational benefit, a four-year enlistee can receive $50,000 annually in cash and direct personal cash benefits - plus food, shelter, clothing, full medical and other bennies. Even with that financial incentive, the US Army has not been able to recruit itself to current full authorized strength in over 3 years. Merely increasing the size of the standing army on paper will not get us more soldiers. We just proved that. Until recently, Rumsfeld had (for three years) increased authorized army strength of 512,400 by 30,000 to 542,400. The Army was not only unable to recruit to that higher number, they were also never able to get all of the 512,400 in uniform. A few months ago, the 30,000 additional troops authorization was withdrawn. The only thing that improved was recruiting statistics. Since recruiters goals are now based on a lower end strength, they can and do announce better results. I see calls now for an additional 60,000 US Army soldiers and an additional 60,000 Marines. Those proposing such increases do not offer a recruiting solution. They do not seem to comprehend that merely approving and budgeting for a higher end strength authorization does not produce more soldiers. uw