I agree. Those who wish a career in the military will remain in after their compulsory service expires, those who don't wish it, will leave. I also believe (probably the only one to do so) that taxes should not be paid while in service. If in the active military, then federal taxes, if in the national guard, then state taxes. I think though that alternative means of serving should be allowed as well such as civil service and the peace corps. I think it should not exceed 2 years and 12 or 18 months would be better. Less than that is not sufficient time to reinforce training, any more takes too much time away from higher education and other pursuits. Those who wish a very technical job in the military (where the training is 6-12 months) can freely enlist for a longer duration.



>Troop requirements are one area where I trust the military. They seem to be more realistic about what they need than politicians are. Remember when Rumsfeld first took office (a few months before 9/11) and his big push was to streamline the military? He wanted to make huge headcount reductions across the board. Apparently he thought the military could conduct all its business from 50,000 feet. Events have proven otherwise. I know soldiers aren't being sent to do anything they didn't technically agree to do but I sympathize with those who have been sent to Iraq two, three, four times. We are putting an unconscionable burden on the relatively few Americans who are active soldiers. (And boy will we pay for it in mental health related issues). Maybe it's time to reinstitute a draft.
>
>>Actually, that's not really true. The U.S. was downsizing at an alarming rate (started by Clinton who cut military personnel by 15 percent more than his predecessor - however, many analysts insist he maintained a strong defense in the process) when 9/11 ocurred. We sent troops to Afghanistan and it quickly became obvious when Iraq came about that we didn't have enough troops. Now the argument could be made that if all fighting and security was done under the NATO or UN umbrella, then a large military force would not be necessary, but I disagree. We do not have coompulsory service - it is entirely voluntary, but males are required to register. In order to have the highly trained personnel in some technical positions, a longer length of service is required and there need to be incentives for that. Should we have so many combat troops? I think so. I do not think the military is too large, anything but. We cannot rely on NATO or the UN - just look at Darfur, I'm sure they are
>>counting their blessings for the UN.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>There is more threat in this world than terrorists. Terrorism is only the most recent threat to the U.S. Do you believe that Canada and other NATO countries do not rely on the military might of the U.S.? Not to mention England and all of NATO. It is a strength that all members contribute to, but I doubt that any one would be willing to see the U.S. without a strong military. The U.S. would feel likewise if any of the other countries decided to disolve their military.
>>>
>>>Well, I don't really think that militaries should be totaly disolved.
>>>More like proportioned to real defence needs of today.
>>>
>>>Cold war is over! If there was no 9/11 and all that came consecutively, armies and defence expences could hv been cut quiet a bit between NATO counties. There is enough power already not only to defend all nato member states but to destroy world meny times over.
>>>Yet, US and UK are expanding militaries like they are to be attacked (from outer space ?? ) any day!
>>>
>>>9/11, Al-Qaeda is NOT something that could rectify wars, ordering fleets of plane carriers, building new army bases , new missile defence systems and so for. Yet it is happening.
>>>
>>>Considering lead positions in NATO, that imposes sort of 'tax' which other NATO countries have no choice but to pay. That is what I have problem with.
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>I guess we could poll the citizens of each of these countries and ask them:
>>>>
>>>>http://www.nato.int/structur/countries.htm
>>>
>>>Outcome of such pools would greatly depened on meny factors;
>>>Weather you make pool before or after few 'Catalysing events', world media/press 'coverages' , geopolitic situation and so for. What do you think pool 'Do we need more military power ?' conducted in US only would hv shown if there was no 9/11 ? Let say on 9/9 ?
>>>
>>>However pointless talking about it since there is no way back in time.
>>>What can be done is ; You stop the wars in the middle east, let some time heal the wounds, world to stabilyse, and then we talk about the same subject some 5 years from now :)
>>>
>>>
>>>