Yeah, George Bush said that on the campaign trail last week, the same week he uttered these words:

“My opponent seems to be willing to say almost anything he thinks will benefit him politically,” he said. “After standing on the stage, after the debates, I made it very plain we will not have an all-volunteer army

The crowd had to correct him.

The interesting thing is that he’s going to be right about this, as the military is going to extraordinary lengths to avoid calling up more troops. Intel Dump notes that the Army is moving the 11th Armored Cav to Iraq. This wouldn’t be all that notable except that they are the OPFOR at the Army’s National Training Center. He notes:

The article misses the most important point: deploying the OPFOR is like eating your seed corn. This unit is responsible for training other units and raising their level of expertise and combat readiness. The 11th ACR is being replaced by a National Guard unit. That’s like replacing the Dodgers with a high school baseball team. Sure, they can both play baseball and wear the uniform — but one is a whole lot more proficient and experienced at its job. The OPFOR has a reputation as a tough enemy, and that’s a good thing because it forces units training at the NTC to become better themselves. By replacing this unit with National Guard troops, the Army has hurt its ability to produce good units for Iraq in the future.

Atrios passes on a rumor (emphasize that, it’s an anonymous email tip) that the military may extend Reservist mobilization to 5 years from the current 2 year limit. That sounds unbelievable to me but it would fit with the two general news items above.

This is significant, by the way. To argue, as some have, that Bush’s resolve in the Iraq situation is the main and/or only reason to vote for him ignores the greater reality of the results of his “resolve” so far. By many accounts, our army is stretched thin, thin enough that we will need to consider significant redeployments in order to deal Bush’s resolve.

To me it boils down to which guy can effectively alter the realities on the ground in Iraq. Is the course we’re on, where we’re talking about gutting our training for at least 1 year, going to improve with Bush in the White House? Who will be better suited to bring new forces to the table? There’s no question who I believe can improve this situation. Four more years of the same foreign policy and same military strategy isn’t going to help. I’m not convinced, as folks like Greg Djeredjian are, that Bush will depart significantly from the script he’s followed so far. More significantly, I don’t believe Bush is so much better on this one issue that it’s worth sacrificing on all the other issues that matter to me. I’m going to spend a bit more time on this later.

I’ve often found that it’s easier to move a President on one important issue than it is to move a President on many different issues at once. For those people who truly believe a Bush foreign policy team is better suited to our current global situation, I honestly believe it will be easier for Congressional leaders to talk to and advise the Kerry White House. I don’t believe that the Bush White House will listen to anyone.