From: Strategy Page
December 18, 2006:"The 1970s saw the end of conscription, and an all-volunteer force. Professional infantry are, all things being equal, much more effective than conscripts." I don't know anyone in the Special Forces community who disagrees with the above statement conceptually. Politicians, pundits, and military leaders are now proposing an increase in the size of our military. Veterans of Special Forces support a program of universal national service. In a recent discussion, the Special Forces Commanding General stated an increase in Army strength will be good for Special Forces for several reasons one of which is it will increase the SF recruiting base. Veterans of Special Forces support the concept. Including initial enlistment bonuses of up to $40,000, nearly $20,000 in annual salary and an $80,000 educational benefit, a four-year enlistee can receive $50,000 annually in cash and direct personal cash benefits - plus food, shelter, clothing, full medical and other bennies. The US Army has not been able to recruit itself to current full authorized strength in over 3 years. Merely increasing the size of the standing army on paper will not get us more soldiers. We just proved that. Until recently, Rumsfeld had (for three years) increased authorized army strength of 512,400 by 30,000 to 542,400. The Army was not only unable to recruit to that higher number, they were also never able to get all of the 512,400 in uniform. A few months ago, the 30,000 additional troops authorization was withdrawn. The only things that improved were recruiting statistics. Since recruiters' goals are now based on a lower end strength, they can and do announce better results. But army recruiters have still not been able to fulfill the 512,400 authorized slots. The current calls for an additional 60,000 US Army soldiers and an additional 60,000 US Marines are unrealistic within the current system. Recruiters are not turning away qualified recruits. Those proposing such strength increases do not offer a recruiting solution. They do not seem to comprehend that merely approving and budgeting for a higher end strength authorization does not produce more soldiers. There is no question the Army and USMC need more folks. The latest effort to increase the potential recruiting manpower pool was to increase the recruiting age for first time enlistees to 42 years old. That is having a negligible effect. Here is a graph to illustrate the importance of strength:
| War / Conflict | Army Strength | Result |
| WWII | 8,000,000 | Win |
| Korea | 1,600,000 | Tie |
| Vietnam | 1,550,000 | Loss |
| GWOT | 550,000 | ? |