The size of the armed forces is set by Congress. Congress is unlikely to raise that limit at any point in the immediate future.
If they did, it would be easily possible to fill the extended ranks with volunteers. Despite the Iraq War and everything else that has happened, all four branches of the armed forces have met all of their recruitment and retention goals -- there are so many people applying that even with the high standards they've got (which they have had the luxury of raising quite a bit in recent times) they have to turn away more people than they accept. Without lowering standards, they could easily fill out a huge increase in manpower size were the Congress to authorize it. If they lowered the standards back to where they were just a decade ago, they could probable raise the army's size by 50% or more without breaking a sweat -- all volunteers, all people who want to be there, no draft required.
If they don't, there is still a large pool of manpower available to be tapped. If I recall correctly, the Army has more troops in Europe than they do in Iraq -- most of whom are in Germany, where they have been for the last 60 years to keep the Soviet Union out. You may have noticed that there is not, and has not been for some time, a Soviet Union anymore. Needless to say, a whole lot of troops are sitting on their butts out there for no reason, and a whole lot of money is being spent to keep them there with no concrete benefit to us whatsoever. For a decade now, the Pentagon has wanted to rotate most of those troops home and/or to other trouble spots in the world, but political concerns have prevented that from happening. It now looks as those many of those troops will finally be freed up to be sent somewhere actually useful. That will, for the time being, relieve any stresses caused by the amount of troops deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan. Whether or not it will allow further deployments (Iran, North Korea) is very questionable, but it should be enough to cover the current commitments.
Trust me. Much of this relates to my job; there is actually more I could say on this subject were I allowed to, but I'm not. Nobody in the Pentagon wants to bring back the draft, and have said so repeatedly. They prefer volunteers who want to be there; of which there is, as of yet, no shortage.
*nods* yeah, I wouldn't really expect a draft unless another front opened up. I do worry though as our president seems to be ok with starting new wars before the old ones are resolved. I know the folks in the Pentagon would be very much against that though, so I'd hope they'd talk him out of invading anyplace new.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 5 Nov 2004 15:30 (UTC)no subject
Date: 6 Nov 2004 18:41 (UTC)If they did, it would be easily possible to fill the extended ranks with volunteers. Despite the Iraq War and everything else that has happened, all four branches of the armed forces have met all of their recruitment and retention goals -- there are so many people applying that even with the high standards they've got (which they have had the luxury of raising quite a bit in recent times) they have to turn away more people than they accept. Without lowering standards, they could easily fill out a huge increase in manpower size were the Congress to authorize it. If they lowered the standards back to where they were just a decade ago, they could probable raise the army's size by 50% or more without breaking a sweat -- all volunteers, all people who want to be there, no draft required.
If they don't, there is still a large pool of manpower available to be tapped. If I recall correctly, the Army has more troops in Europe than they do in Iraq -- most of whom are in Germany, where they have been for the last 60 years to keep the Soviet Union out. You may have noticed that there is not, and has not been for some time, a Soviet Union anymore. Needless to say, a whole lot of troops are sitting on their butts out there for no reason, and a whole lot of money is being spent to keep them there with no concrete benefit to us whatsoever. For a decade now, the Pentagon has wanted to rotate most of those troops home and/or to other trouble spots in the world, but political concerns have prevented that from happening. It now looks as those many of those troops will finally be freed up to be sent somewhere actually useful. That will, for the time being, relieve any stresses caused by the amount of troops deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan. Whether or not it will allow further deployments (Iran, North Korea) is very questionable, but it should be enough to cover the current commitments.
Trust me. Much of this relates to my job; there is actually more I could say on this subject were I allowed to, but I'm not. Nobody in the Pentagon wants to bring back the draft, and have said so repeatedly. They prefer volunteers who want to be there; of which there is, as of yet, no shortage.
no subject
Date: 6 Nov 2004 20:52 (UTC)