Dave Thompson wrote:
"Eric Gill" wrote in message
9...
"Duke of URL" wrote in news:10ci0tkf4k8kbb3
@corp.supernews.com:

"Lee Oswald Ving" wrote in message
...
"Tom Beard" wrote in
hlink.net:

With recruiting at record levels,

Record low levels, perhaps.

The various recruiters for ALL services are turning away people because
quotas are full.

And you think deleting the url completely contradicting that fantasy is
going to make reality go away?

You mean this one?
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/U...nt_040602.html

How about this one?
http://www.military.com/NewsContent/...041404,00.html
Or this one? http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/joini...cruitgoals.htm
Or this one? http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3540775/

Even the ABC story you giggle at is slanted to the National Guard and
Reserve recruitment issue, NOT the active force.

Congress needs to authorize a larger active force and the need for
NG/Reserve forces will diminish.

I think we're quibbling over the meaning of words here. After NG and Reserve
units and personnel are activated and shipped over to Iraq, they are considered
part of the active force.....not the regular component, to be sure, but as much
a part of the actives doing the fighting as the full-time professionals are. NG
units and personnel in particular are removed from the legal control of their
respective state AGs when they're activated and are placed under the legal
control of the DOD.

George Z.