Josh Hill wrote:
> On Tue, 15 May 2007 02:14:16 +0100, Andrew Swallow
>  wrote:
> 
>> Josh Hill wrote:
>> [snip]
>>
>>> Right now, the word is that we'd need hundreds of thousands of new
>>> troops. But we don't have them and we aren't going to get them unless
>>> we can get the Iraqis to fight as Iraqis rather than as Sunnis or
>>> Shites or Kurds. Which we can't. Hence, the war is lost.
>>>
>> Or the Democrats bring in laws to increase the size of the US Army by 
>> several hundred thousand men.  That should reduce the unemployment. 
>> Congress will also have to pay for the extra weapons.
> 
> Actually, if you remember, Kerry proposed increasing the size of the
> army during the presidential debates. Bush did not. Furthermore, 
> 
> "A team of Senate and House Democrats today are planning to introduce
> legislation today aimed at significantly increasing size of  the U.S.
> Army."
> 
>
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/dems-aim-to-increase-army-size-2005-07-13.html
> 
> But the sort of troop buildup that would be necessary in Iraq can't
> happen, because it would require a draft, and the public isn't willing
> to send a million kids to fight in another country's civil war.
> 
A draft either lasts 2 years or until the war is over.  A 2 year draft 
is only useful in peace time.  It is the wrong sort of war for a keep 
until the fighting is over.

More appropriate for anti-insurgency actions is career military.  Men 
recruited for 10 or 20 year terms.

http://www.carlisle.army.mil/usawc/Parameters/04autumn/ohanlon.htm>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States>
The current size of the US Army is about 500,000 people.  The US 
population is about 302,000,000 which is 0.17% of the population.
Increasing the US military to say 1% of men would give 1,510,000 men 
under arms.  Expensive but not impossible.

Andrew Swallow
--- SBBSecho 2.12-Win32