One official told ABC News, other than the troops now in Iraq and Afghanistan, there are only two to three combat brigades — that's 7,000 to 10,000 troops — who are fully trained and equipped to respond quickly to a crisis.

Researchers at conservative think tanks like the American Enterprise Institute and the Heritage Foundation call for larger ground forces, as do thinkers at centrist and liberal organizations like Brookings, CSIS, and even the Center for American Progress. The more modest recommendations call for increasing the Army, over the next few years, by 50,000 to 100,000 new troops from its current 500,000. We would urge an immediate expansion toward a 750,000-person Army. In any case, the consensus for a larger Army is about as complete as it could be.

The increased demand for troops comes at a time when military analysts say it is nearly stressed to the breaking point. on-deployed combat brigades are experiencing low readiness ratings due mostly to a lack of usable weapons and equipment, the paper noted. The wear and tear in Iraq is ruining M1A1 tanks, Bradley fighting vehicles, Humvee vehicles and other equipment at such a fast pace that the Army has neither the money nor the industrial base to replace them, according to the Times.

If the American force in Iraq cannot be shrunk, lawmakers will face some difficult decisions, military experts said. Jack L. Tilley, who from 2000 to 2004 served as sergeant major of the Army — the service's top enlisted officer — said "The question our Congress has to ask itself is at what point do we activate our country a little bit more. Nobody wants to talk about a draft. But how long are you going to go until enough is enough? Those are tough questions."

In recent days, US military commanders have delivered a bleak message about Iraq: The number of American troops there is not likely to be substantially reduced anytime soon. Yet the current force may have been strained near the breaking point by frequent deployments to the region, say experts. That means in the months to come, the Pentagon could face increased pressure to expand the size of the active-duty Army.

The United States military has a very big problem: Too many global conflicts and commitments - and too few soldiers.That's why it's time to reinstate the draft. A draft would do more than just harness the energy and idealism of the nation's youth to meet the military's unmet personnel needs. It would also tap more of the resources of the nation's women, heeding their demands for more gender equality by making their obligations more consonant with their rights.

The head of Connecticut's Selective Service program, believes the nation needs a military draft. "I think it is going to be almost unavoidable if we continue heading down the path we are going on," said retired Brig. Gen. Nathan Agostinelli. "A lot of those in Congress know it is needed, but they also know they wouldn't get elected if they said so."

This year the army appears to be on target to reach the 80,000 goal but to do so it has had to double the top enlistment bonuses for recruits from $20,000 to $40,000. It has also had to loosen medical standards, forgive more minor criminal offences, raise the age limit for new recruits from 35 to 42 and accept more people who did not finish high school.

This was the plan in 1973: Dump the draft. Count on volunteers. When something big comes up, rely on the reserves and National Guard. Only in the case of a long-term, large-scale foreign deployment - define that as more than six months and 100,000 troops - would there be any need to bother with a draft again.

The Marine Corps will soon begin ordering thousands of its troops back to active duty because of a shortage of volunteers for Iraq and Afghanistan — the first involuntary recall since the early days of the war. The deployments can last up to two years, but on average would be 12 to 18 months. Each Marine who is being recalled will get five months to prepare before having to report.