Interesting questions. I think like most things, Americans want it both ways - with the option of not paying for it if at all possible.

The problem I see with the "professionalism" debate is that it's very narrow, and takes the existence of the Army as it is constituted today for granted. But that's not sustainable because of the fiscal constraints of decaying military purchasing power. I haven't seen a chart of military expenditures as a percentage of the federal budget since, say, 1945 but the numbers within the DoD budget's line items are, in a word, disconcerting. How do high operational tempos, an expeditionary posture with global commitments, and shrinking budget availability for personnel affect "professionalism"?