We can count on a mandatory draft is Bush is re-elected.

If I'm not mistaken, these numbers were presented rather positively in the story I read. Obviously they're not.

"Maybe these numbers are a temporary blip, but losing almost half of mid-career soldiers, if the trend holds up, could rapidly empty the army of the long-term institutional intelligence and training of the military-- a legacy of the Iraq war that could hurt the country deeply if a real military need arises."

Many of us warned before the war that invading the non-threat, non-terrorist supporting, non-WMD nation of Iraq would leave us unable to address the real dangers our country faces. Not only are Al Qaeda and the Taliban regrouping since we've diverted so many of our forces to Afghanistan and Iraq, but North Korea and Iran have both stepped up their nuclear programs in part because they know we don't have the available military force to confront them. (I'm not suggesting we invade them, I'm suggesting that we need an effective deterrent in order for negotiations with those countries to have any chance of succeeding.) And now the losses of skilled military personnel will greatly jeopardize our capability to carry out future missions that unlike the Iraq war will be necessary to our security.

THE BUSH PRESIDENCY IS A NIGHTMARE FROM WHICH I AM TRYING TO AWAKE.

(In honor of the 100th anniversary of James Joyce’s Bloomsday, June 16, 2004)

We are in a world of hurt and it is going to take YEARS to fix it.

The screwing of the reserves ios going to make those numbers even worse. And then there are the new graduates who had originally planned to join the military, but who have decided that junior college is a lot better than frying in a hostile desert territory for Halliburton's profits.

I'd like to emphasize that this is War On The Army, as opposed to the other services. No big pork barrel programs in the Army; just people who do the work that needs to be done. That's why the Army has been treated like dirt by this administration.

Our troops are losing their will to fight
because they have no faith in their commanders;
when they receive an order, they can not be sure
if it's from the Pres, VP, or Halliburton/KBR
itself (literally). And any fool can see that
"terror" isn't a tangeable, defeatable foe.
But, tragically, their common sense reaction
(jumping ship) weakens our hand further and
exposes the more courageous remainder of troops
to greater harm. There is no choice, now, but to
escelate the "war." I can already hear you idiots
accusing liberals of taking joy in these numbers.
You should know, we would RATHER be executing a
sane and effective strategy for dealing with
terrorism, much like the troops mentioned in the
piece, I suspect. That the current debacle is
failing is no cause for joy, only tears, as it
can only result in more intense bloodshed.

It's hardly surprising that young kids, originally looking for help for college, would decide that military service in Iraq isn't what they originally signed up for

It seems to me they got exactly what they signed up for--they served their 4 years and they decided to take the 4 years of benefits and, you know, actually go to college.

Signing up to offer to put your body between loved home and war's desolation in case some wicked foreigners should be so foolish as to attack us, or offer some other legitimate causus belli, is very different from signing up asa chess piece in a drunken frat boy's fantasy games of world domination. Anyone who is realistic about American history knows that there has always been some cynical abuse of the US soldier in the service of a cynical foreign policy. But we have been restrained in that by prudence and I think there has historically been a division of labor; the blackest operations have been kept small and carried out by the most gung-ho types, while the kid who basically wants to offer some service and have his college courses subsidized would only be called to serve in more clearcut roles, either defense preparedness or under fire in some situation that had clear reasons in accepted foreign policy. By drawing heavily on reserves and playing games with recruitment terms Bush is recklessly throwing a spectrum of soldiers who are not Green Beret types into the raw consequencies of his own ambitions. They have every right to protest this abuse, especially considering that the whole package of miltary benefits is not all that generous.

Some of those non-reenlisters may be holding out for jobs in the private secuirty firms Bush is willing to pay scads of money to. Clealry for a fraction of that money he could be at least offering his own uniformed soldiers a less raw deal, if it is too much to ask that he had a rational foreign policy to begin with. Unless he is planning on these expensive mercenary forces to cover his back if the real troops mutiny I can't see any sanity in his methods. If you are gong to screw the people and rig the election you had best have _some_ army or other in your corner!