I understand that the overall
numbers are short, Marg, but I also don't understand why the Hagel talk of concern continues.
How many troops are deployed in Iraq?
When all is taken into account, the numbers are fine; rotation is the key.
THE SIZE OF THE U.S. ARMY
Currently, there are 499,000 active duty Army troops, backed up by 700,000 National Guard and Army reservists. That's a third less than when the U.S.
fought its last big war in the Persian Gulf, in 1991;
130,000 Army troops are in Iraq. Pentagon officials had hoped to reduce that number, but the ongoing insurgency prevented it; 9,000 Army
troops are in Afghanistan; 3,000 help keep the peace in Bosnia, as do 37,000 in South Korea.
I will insist that though the numbers are close for active service, this nation has a Reserve and National Guard for a reason, and one of their duties
are to serve during wartime in combat when so required. As such, when combining those numbers for active duty and National Guard and reservists, there
is no need for the talk of draft
or near the concern so being continually pointed out. Hagel, as with others, are simply looking at active
Stretched thin may be a valid concern, but the suggested increase in active troop levels has only been suggested at 520,000. As such, the current
active duty level is 499,000+, so we are only talking an increase of 20-25,000 active duty troops. Definately not enough to warrent a draft
so suggested by Hagel and others. The draft
resolution/measure has been voted down twice already. How many more times will it have to be voted
down before some get the message that there will be no such draft
Furthermore, though some are advocating and obviously eatting up the bad
news that the military will fall short of 2005 goals, there have been
nearly 200,000 that have enlisted in the last 7 months. Hagel, as with others, are apart of the 'draft invoking disaster critics of the war',
[edit on 22-8-2005 by Seekerof]