"- and these are done on an individual basis rather than as a blanket change -"

Well, when the number of "individual" cases is continually on the increase, it's really just a matter of semantics to argue over whether or not we're seeeing a deliberate shift in policy (a "blanket" change") or just some temporary and accidental quirk.

Hundreds (or thousands) of individual recruiters are assigned quotas, all or most of them have trouble finding enough fully-qualified recruits, and most of the recruiters have to make exceptions in order to perform to expectations. It's pretty disingenuous to dismiss this phenomenon as an accidental series of random individual instances: the quotas are set as a matter of nationwide policy, and the increasing reluctance to volunteer during an unpopular and highly dangerous conflict is no accident, either.

I would also like to believe that reinstatement of the draft will never happen, and understand completely how and why military professionals are no more anxious than pacifists to see reluctant draftees enter the services. However, it's not the professional soldiers I'm worried about ~ it's the saber-rattling politicians who tend to start wars without considering whether they can be finished, and thereby create situations where manpower is stretched beyond any tolerable measure.

Right now, the best idea that the hawks in Washington can put forward to encourage retention is to keep a lid on veterans' benefits, so that soldiers are discouraged from mustering out and finding themselves at a severe disadvantage in a tough civilian economy, unable to afford education and without access to adequate medical care.