An e-mail in response to yesterday’s op-ed:

Great Rich, you and Bill say we need more troops. Good idea — you’re absolutely right. One question: where the hell are they going to come from? To get to the generally agreed upon level we need (about 250,000), we simply don’t have that number right now, and we can’t get them.
You and Bill seem to forget that we have an all volunteer force, and that the additional troops will have to be raised. We cannot raise an excess right now — just to get to make our numbers we have had to (1) raise the eligible enlistment age to 42, (2) lower our standards on education level (3) lower our standards on things like visible tatoos (i.e. indicators of behavior that may not be overly positive). We also have had to involuntarily hold people past their scheduled retirement or ETS dates.
The culture has also changed — there was no big rush to enlist after 9/11 as there was after WWII. All this “support the troops” rhetoric is very hollow. Young men just aren’t joining up in droves.
Additionally, the type of troops we need is at issue. Right now in Iraq, we have essentially retrained artillery, air defense, and other specialties to do basic infantry missions. Not only do we not have enough troops, we don’t have the right mix — we need more engineers, more transportation, and much much more military police. We are making our recruiting number, but we don’t need more supply clerks. We need more warriors.
I dislike the “chickenhawk” slur, but this column of yours reflects the complete lack of reality that permeates some people who have never served in the military. Guys are on their 3rd or 4th tours in Iraq. You simply can’t say “we need more troops” without reinitiating the draft. That will never happen.