Perhaps my most fulfilling assignment during my active duty time was the 4 1/2 months I spent in Saudi Arabia in 1997-98. I was working 16-18 hours a day, seven days a week most of the time, but I felt like I was contributing to something far grander than myself. If I'd been offered an opportunity to extend for a year, I'd probably have taken it and then tried to convince my wife not to leave me.

Ironically, my recall to active duty from the Reserves after 9/11 (I spent a year at the Pentagon) seems to have been good medicine in that regard. For the most part, I was underutilized during that year and felt "far from the action". I'm still in the Reserves, but no longer feel that the military is my calling.

Of course, if I got orders for Afghanistan or Iraq, I wouldn't try to evade the call. I guess pride in purpose is one of the hallmarks of a professional military--at least when it retains respectful appreciation from most Americans.

When they interview a soldier who was just injured in battle what do they almost all universally say??? -- That they can't wait to get back with their unit.

OK maybe I get the "counterintuitive" part but lemme say it this way... I'm not sure why it is surprising.

James might be right to wonder how come.

He says several senior NCO's in his unit decided not to re-up because of the likelihood of accelerating overseas assignments.

I spent four years in uniform myself, and agree these reported retention results seem counterintuitive.

But then again this news may be happy talk. Certainly it is superficial.

It would be more meaningful information if we were told:

1) how these present targets relate to those targets that were established for a number of preceding years (lowered target numbers perhaps?);

2) how these most recent results relate numerically to results achieved for prior year targets;

3) what the results were for each pay grade (are we losing the important senior NCO contingency?)

---