I agree with almost everything you wrote except for a couple of points.

First, there is no prescribed 'one year between deployments.' It would be nice, and it is a goal, but during war it is never attained unless there is a draft. In fact, the ideal spread is a one-year deployment with a 5-yr term at home for the National Guard. During wartime, that is not possible. During peacetime, the deployment training counts as a deployment and those goals are for peacetime, not wartime. For the active army, the goal is a one-year deployment with 2yrs at home. Again, that is all only a 'goal' and not realistic during hostilities which require our full force. In regular practice, soldiers regularly get overseas unaccompanied assignments (Afghanistan and Korea for example) for a year and then only 1 year at home before going again. Then there are soldiers who never get assigned to either location. Keep in mind those are individual assignments and NOT unit assignments. For wartime, units are deployed.

Second, soldiers with families have never received preferential treatment. That is as it should be. There are some assignments which can be filled by volunteers and soldiers are only recruited involuntarily if enough volunteers do not sign on for it, but that is not the same thing.

My personal opinion: if you have a family and you don't want to be sent overseas or to war for any reason then don't sign up period. When you take the oath it is spelled out CLEARLY that you agree to protect the U.S. from both foreign and domestic enemies and at the will of the Commander in Chief. Many do not always agree with whether or not hostilities should exist to begin with, but that decision has always resided with congress and the President, not with the individual soldier. AS IT SHOULD BE. There are many who join the reserves simply for the extra money. IMHO, they have no business being in the reserves. The reserves are not there for peacetime but for reinforcements during wartime when necessary. In the past we have gone so long without needing the reserves for support that many have taken it for granted that if they join they will never leave their state. That misconception is cleared up when they signon.

You might find this interesting:
http://www.ngb.army.mil/news/archives/111506-PACE_Kosovo.aspx
and
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/special/iraq/2983105.html

Also, it is important to remember that in 1991 the active duty force numbered around 750,000 soldiers. Then remember the military cost cutting ideas of a more streamlined military and the base closures? When Iraqi Freedom began, the troop strength had been cut down to 480,000.








>There are significant differences. Vietnam was a real war with real armies. In Iraq our soldiers are not there to defeat an enemy but to keep the peace. In a country that has descended into civil war, even though that phrase is not uttered by the administration. Keeping the peace isn't what soldiers are trained to do. This has been a fool's mission from the start, and I think you know which fool I mean.
>
>The people I most sympathize with are the grunts from reserve units who have been deployed in Iraq. Sure, they knew when they signed up that they might be sent into a combat zone. But I think the deal they thought they were signing up for was "I have other things going on in my life now but if there is a genuine threat to our country, I'm there." Which is the spirit the U.S. was founded on. And now, despite the absence of any threat to our country from Iraq whatsoever other than to our reputation, they are routinely called into active duty. Even the old rules are being twisted. Reservists are redeployed to Iraq, and to a lesser extent Afghanistan, again and again, with less time between missions than the prescribed one year.
>
>One Sunday last month at my younger daughter's volleyball practice I got into conversation with the only other parent there -- most are local and just pick up and drop off -- and he mentioned that he is in the NG. "Any chance of being called up?" I asked, expecting the answer to be no. Rich said he is expecting it. I was surprised. "Don't guys with families get preference?" "Not much," he said. "Not now."
>
>I won't be a bit surprised to find out he is one of Bush's new 20,000. And it bothers me. It bothers me a lot. These are real people. Tracy and others know far more of them than I do but it still burns me up. All to keep one President from having to say, "OK, so maybe I screwed up."
>
>
>
>>Isn't this like what happened in Vietnam?
>>
>>>Brilliant! Let's throw more troops at the problem! (rolling eyes madly)
>>>
>>>The militia groups are already gearing up for an increase in hostilities. Bush's plan is going to make the situation in Iraq even more unstable, not less.
>>>
>>>
>>>>What did you think of the speech (and the stated plan) last nite?
>>>>
>>>>>The additional troops are going so hopefully congress will not stop the funding at this point because it will not bring home the troops but will only limit the ability to pay for the necessary equipment and hurt the troops.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>A recent article about the supply of armored humvees:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nationworld/iraq/bal-te.armor10jan10,0,2049191.story?coll=bal-iraq-headlines
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The accidental deaths should be shocking, but it is not really when you look at the fact that there are how many troops in Iraq? Compare that to a city and the typical statistics of a city as far as cancer, vehicle accidents, suicides, etc. The explosive device deaths are not surprising simply due to the fact that it is the weapon of choice over there. If it wasn't explosive devices then it would probably be gunshot deaths. All of it is tragic, but what concerns me is the 340 not reported. Why were they not reported? Are they civilian deaths (contractors)? I see no means of military deaths going unreported greater than 30 days because every military death is reported and investigated. Even during peacetime there are deaths in every unit due to vehicle accidents, drinking and driving, cancer, strokes, heart attacks, etc.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Showing where the casualty is from. This appears to correspond to population density.
>>>>>>>>http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/static.php?f=wherecamefrom.php
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Pie chart of casulties by age group. Also shows age distribution in the dept of defence.
>>>>>>>>http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/static.php?f=age.php
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Pie chart by gender
>>>>>>>>http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/static.php?f=gender.php
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Pie chart by race
>>>>>>>>http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/static.php?f=race.php
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Listing of type and cause of death
>>>>>>>>http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/static.php?f=typecauseofdeath.php
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>What is shocking is that almost 700 deaths were accidents. As well 340 deaths had the causes "not reported". 4 drug overdoses. 8 from stroke, 4 from cancer.