Somebody should start asking this question and putting the GOP nominee on the spot.

He says we should be prepared to be at war for the next century. But right now, there are not enough warm bodies to continue the current folly. Reservists are being cycled back and forth from the Middle East, home again briefly, and then back into the bloodbath again, in some cases ("stop-losses") in violation of their original enlistment contracts.

Obviously enough, there are not going to be enough volunteers willing to go kill-or-be-killed for someone else's notion of idealism or patriotism or whatever. Of course, as the economy gets worse and worse and higher education gets further and further out of reach, more and more young people are going to be in a position where they feel the military is their only career option.

The absense of other, better, opportunities explains why many current service members enlisted in the first place, especially those who signed up back when they thought it was "peacetime." Now that it is becoming ever clearer that enlistment entails real risk of death and dismemberment, not to mention lifelong psychological trauma for many of those who live long enough to be discharged, can we expect enough volunteers to sustain constant ongoing warfare?

Moderators at the upcoming general-election debates NEED to confront McCain with this question, which should be obvious but which has become a sort-of taboo subject. They should ask all/both candidates, of course, but the quesiotn would obviously put greater pressure on the more pro-war contender.