One of the things that really bothers me about people who claim we need a draft is that they don't even feel the need to explain why they don't think we can enlarge the military through recruitment. (Of course some support a draft not for security reasons, but for social planning. That argument is misguided, but at least it doesn't rest on the idea that we can't recruit all the soldiers we need.) The reason that this bothers me so much is that the premise they don't feel the need to prove doesn't appear to be true:
FORT CAMPBELL, Ky. (AP) - Despite the shrapnel wounds Staff Sgt. William Pinkley suffered during his tour in Iraq, the 26-year-old is joining other soldiers who are re-enlisting at rates that exceed the retention goals set by the Pentagon.As of March 31 - halfway through the Army's fiscal year - 28,406 soldiers had signed on for another tour of duty, topping the six-month goal of 28,377. The Army's goal is to re-enlist 56,100 soldiers by the end of September.
Pinkley re-enlisted for three more years, citing the camaraderie and the challenge of a new assignment.
"To come out and work with you guys every day, it's a good feeling," Pinkley, 26, told his 101st Airborne Division buddies during the ceremony earlier this month. His wife, Kimberly, watched with a smile, their toddler in her arms.
"It's a very positive retention picture at this point," said Lt. Col. Franklin Childress, an Army public affairs officer. The Army had nearly a half-million active-duty soldiers.
Now it's true that this trend could change, but for now there's simply no reason to assume that we need a draft to maintain our force strength. For that matter, based on the numbers I've been seeing, there's every reason to believe we could increase our force strength (which I believe a very good idea) strictly through recruitment.
Comments