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: JDN who wrote (203561)	4/21/2007 9:43:14 AM
From: unclewest	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793957

I doubt ANYONE knows precisely how many Army grunts we need as so much depends upon World events and our involvement in them I agree. The need is always situational, and it was so in the past. But when we lost the draft we also lost the ability to ramp up and down quickly to address changing situations. One lesson learned is that we must (without a draft) go to war with plans that only require the troops we have or less. In the past four years, we have not once been at pre-war authorized troop strengths. Rummie and Gates both authorized increases in troop strength of tens of thousands of soldiers. Recruiting command has been barely able to keep up what they had. They never recruited ONE of the extra allocations. We would be terribly understrength without the: 1. 7-fold increases in enlistment and reenlistment bonuses as high as $150,000. 2. Stop-Loss technique that keeps men in service beyond the date they contracted for. 3. The periodic retirement suspension that also keeps some combat troops in the service. 4. The multiple combat tours for Reserve and National Guard units.