and only have 130K in there now, and they talk about NO DRAFT, I just wonder how many troops are available for redeployments without a draft to keep this enterprise going for, as Sen McCain so blithely put it "10, 20 years...that's not so bad"
(see
http://www.spectrumz.com/z/fair_use/2004/09_04.html )
The 500K was from a Ray McGovern quote from the Intn'l Inst for Strategic Studies in London somewhere that I saw posted.
"Regular troop strength ranges from a low of 1 in Malawi to a high of 74,796 in Germany. At the time the most recent "Personnel Strengths" was released by the government (September 30, 2003), there were 183,002 troops deployed to Iraq, an unspecified number of which came from U.S. forces in Germany and Italy. The total number of troops deployed abroad as of that date was 252,764, not including U.S. troops in Iraq from the United States. Total military personnel on September 30, 2003, was 1,434,377. This means that 17.6 percent of U.S. military forces were deployed on foreign soil, and certainly over 25 percent if U.S. troops in Iraq from the United States were included. But regardless of how many troops we have in each country, having troops in 135 countries is 135 countries too many." from
http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance8.htmlWithout a draft, they will be wearing out the guys/gals in there now. With a draft, they will set off anti-war riots here at home.
No good options. The military will decide for themselves whether that "..not so bad" part of the deal the Republicans speak of is really true or not. Learning by doing. It's better when you learn from wiser people who can direct you in saner paths.