The armed forces cannot just go after the individuals with drug and criminal records, they must account for example, for the the number of white supremacists they've allowed into their ranks who come in to get combat training to carry out against "minorities" and other people they deem to be targets of their hatred. Byt the time the armed forces get done weeding out soldiers and/or potential soldiers who fall short of their conduct and "moral" standards, the Army could be a lot smaller before it gets bigger. Perhaps that's the way it should be.

There's so many things to say about this development.

Who now would argue that Bill Clinton weakened our military compared to the Stubborn in Chief?

My local newspaper the Arizona Daily Star broke a story about Tucson-area military recruiters who willingly ran drugs, and recruited recruits, as it were, to do the same, and were caught in an FBI sting. The link:

http://www.azstarnet.com/dailystar/160717

I don't think the cost of more troops is a serious issue, especially if the estimate is right that it would cost "roughly $1.2 billion a year for each additional 10,000 troops." The US has a GDP of about $13 trillion and a population of about 300 million. We could raise, say, another 100,000 troops without breathing hard, if we needed them. If we needed them. That's the issue. I don't know any reason we do. Anyone who thinks a "surge" has much prospect of success needs to take a look at the troop/population ratio in cases where armies did successfully supress insurgencies-- Iraq in 1920, the Phillippines around 1900, etc. Given our experience in Iraq, we certainly aren't going to be invading any more countries anytime soon, not if they are larger than Panama. There's a role for the military in fighting terrorism, but it's a small, specialized role. Once our troops are out of Iraq, we'll have plenty of troops for any mission the American people will support for the foreseeable future.

Let foreigners join for 5 years in exchange for citizenship.

I'm assuming the bonus is not going to be applied retroactively to the soldiers who already signed up. Their tough luck, I suppose.

Of course, given the example of the current enlisted, I expect that signing bonus will still not cover the armor that's not being bought and the veteran's benefits that are being slashed.

Short of people wanting a way out of prison or similarly dire circumstances, very few in their right minds would want to join the US military at this point. And that's the problem with recruiting.

If you're going to run an opinion peice, run an opinion peice- but for god's sake, get your facts straight. Don't use misleading figures and statistics to make your point. Normally I like Salon, but then reading something like this... just makes me wonder what other figures your writers are massaging until they better support their intended point.

Any discussion of the manpower problems facing the Army and Marine Corps also requires mention of the issue of "Private Security Contractors" in relation to recruitment, retention in service and the overall expense of military operations.

As I understand it, in addition to the approximately 140,000 military personnel in Iraq, there are also another 100,000 contractors, most of whom are serving in functions that require they be armed. They operate outside of direct control of the military chain of command performing a variety of functions; security details to various US and Iraqi governmental and NGO's, transportation, training, logistical support, etc. These contractors typically pay at least 5 times what a uniformed service member would earn for comparable duty and are one of the major reasons that money flows into Iraq at such an obscene rate. The contractors are a huge drain on the uniform services as they provide tremendous incentive for many of the most highly qualified US soldiers and Marines to leave the service as enlistments expire. Beyond the manpower problems, these heavily armed civilians, operating outside of the jurisdiction of the Uniform Code of Military Justice as well as US and Iraqi legal constraints, have added greatly to the hatred for our presence in Iraq. To sum it up, the Department of Defense, which awards the vast majority of these contracts, is in effect recruiting against itself while paying a super premium for services that customarily it should be providing for itself in a war zone.

This must stop! The problem is that; guess what, these contractors are ALL big Republican campaign contributors. They typically show a preference for Mormons and Christian fundamentalists in their recruiting efforts. These security contractors represent the most dangerous component of the right-wing, anti-government mania for "privatizing" traditional government functions. They are now an established political and financial force within the military/industrial complex, well stocked with highly compensated former military officers and lobbyists.

Robert Young Pelton in his book, Licensed to Kill, published earlier this year, provides a starting point in understanding this phenomenon.

Not so long ago, it was a federal offense for a US civilian to bear arms in a foreign country during US combat operations regardless of their loyalty. Those were well reasoned laws that provided a wide range of protections for our troops and our national security.

The use of contractors distorts the apparent manpower commitment to the war in Iraq. Furthermore, it distorts the public's sense of the adequacy and capability of our ground forces overall. No doubt, eliminating the contractors from armed functions would increase manpower needs for the military. But it would also free up more than enough money to pay for those troops while solving some major problems both on the ground in Iraq and within our domestic political culture.

Wow dude. You were well prepared for Benjamin's topic. Uncanny.

The first time I saw and heard it, I laughed so hard I almost peed. There's one gaff in that commercial that will leave you speechless.

"Not just strong, but Army strong. Not just the strength to get over, but the strength to get over yourself."

Who was the genius who came up with that one? I guess they aren't just lowering standards in the ranks, they let it spill over into their ad copy writing also.