Last year, a temporary increase of 30,000 reservists was authorized. Now it is being proposed that the increase be made permanent. Especially if, as anticipated, a large number of troops will be needed in Iraq for the next four or five years. The actual change amounts to this:

Under current policy, a reservist is not to serve on active duty for more than 24 months, although those months can be split among multiple deployments that occur over a period of years.

The change under consideration, the Army official said, would essentially make a reservist eligible for an unlimited number of call-ups but stipulate that no single mobilization would last more than 24 consecutive months.

How much will the reservists take before rebelling?

The news comes as the Bush administration confronts rising controversy over the shape and size of the U.S. military, particularly whether the active-duty and reserve forces are robust enough to meet the many demands placed upon them. Soldiers and their families are also expressing frustration at repeat deployments to Iraq and tours of duty that have already been extended.

As one official says:

"We are concerned about the health of this all-volunteer force," the official said.

Another expert says:

The reserves are already overstretched," said retired Army Col. Andrew J. Bacevich, a professor of international relations at Boston University. "To change the rules will almost certainly backfire and accelerate the deterioration of the reserves."

After the reserves, who do you think will be left? Go here and watch Bush lie about it.