I remember during the early-middle days of the Iraq War there were growing concerns on the need to reinstate conscription to shore up US troop numbers. Was there any legitimate concern behind this or was it just political/media fear-mongering?

  • I'm assuming the no-reason downvote and close vote is due to this being current events? Shall we close this and re-open in 5 year's time when the question will fit in more accurately with history? Commented Jul 13, 2015 at 1:45

1 Answer 1


The US was never close to reinstating conscription. This is popularly regarded (and probably correctly) to be political suicide for most elected representatives. However, the needs of the American military did push the volunteer recruitment system to its limits. The Army fell short of its recruitment goal by 5,000 people in 2005. The Army adjusted by raising the maximum enlistment age to 42. It also lowered admissions standards, in part by offering more waivers to recruits. As a 2007 study showed:

Pentagon statistics show the army met [its recruitment] goal by accepting a higher percentage of enlistees with criminal records, drug or alcohol problems, or health conditions that would have ordinarily disqualified them from service.

In each fiscal year since the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, statistics show, the army has accepted a growing percentage of recruits who do not meet its own minimum fitness standards. The October statistics show that at least 1 of every 5 recruits required a waiver to join the service, leading military analysts to conclude that the army is lowering standards more than it has in decades. (New York Times)

Standards have risen again with the decrease in manpower needs, as this 2013 article details:

The Pentagon estimates that only one in four of today's youth are fit for military service. More than 20% of high-school students fail to graduate. Obesity and other medical conditions disqualify about 35% of candidates. Prior drug and alcohol involvement disqualify another 19%, and criminal records disqualify 5%.

It wasn't always this way. Just six years ago, during the Iraq war surge, the military had lower standards. Only about 86% of new recruits had high-school diplomas, and just 67% of recruits scored in the top 50th percentile on the Armed Forces Qualification Test. Waivers excusing health issues and prior misconduct -- even felonies -- were not uncommon.

Here's a graphic for U.S. troop strength in Iraq:

enter image description here

And one for Afghanistan:

enter image description here

  • Great answer but before I accept - could you find any info on the shortfall of other years, and any info on why this shortfall couldn't be replenished by pulling soldiers from quiet theaters like Japan, UK and Germany (which collectively had about 100,000 deployed soldiers in mid-2000's)? Commented Jul 12, 2015 at 16:26
  • @EvilWashingMachine: Good question. I wouldn't know where to look for official documentation on that, but I have a hunch from organizational theory. It's conventional wisdom that you never admit you could perform a task with fewer resources than you've already allocated to that task. The Army would say, "What does Iraq have to do with our needs in the UK?" If the Army admitted it could operate for a decade with fewer troops in UK etc., then after the wars died down, Congress might ask why they couldn't continue to operate indefinitely with fewer troops there. That's just speculation though.
    – two sheds
    Commented Jul 12, 2015 at 16:32
  • IIRC, they also raised the age limit up into the 40's.
    – T.E.D.
    Commented Jul 12, 2015 at 19:03
  • @T.E.D.: You recalled correctly. Edited answer.
    – two sheds
    Commented Jul 12, 2015 at 20:12

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.