Copied from  ==  
 For background, original title was 'Conscription in East Timor': 

 Hi, Do you know if East Timor currently has military conscription in place? This 2008 UNHCR-sponsored report says it was introduced in 2007 but the CIA World Fact Book says that there was no conscription as at 2008.    
 :Short answer - no. RS: http://navfacpacific.us/Timor%20Leste/.../Timor%20Chief%20Brief%20APR10%20v1.ppt. 
 I spoke to an official in the UNMIT Security Sector Support Unit in April-May. The force size is ~717 + 579 new recruits from December 2009, minus 11 deceased. 150 of those new recruits are going to the naval component. Those recruits (implied) were volunteers; as you wrote yourself, thousands tried for the few spots in the 2nd Battalion earlier. Much of that should be reflected in the link above, which is a powerpoint briefing from the chief of the U.S. Office of Defence Cooperation at the Embassy in Dili. TMR is now a Major General; Lere An Timor a Brigadier. A third battalion is under consideration and the force size aim is still 3,000 by 2020. Note in your link that there is no confirmation that this legal provision is to be enforced; like the Selective Service System in the United States.    
 ::OK, thanks a lot for that (and for the very useful link). It's proving rather interesting updating the F-FDTL and Australian Defence Force articles at the same time!    
 :::Done (though it's pretty similar to the US Embassy's report on its engagement with the F-FDTL during 2009 which I've been using as a citation).    
 ::::Hi, I hope that you don't mind me undoing this edit, but that is the figure the IISS gives for just the 'Army' (with an additional 82 for the Naval Element).    
 :::::I've reverted your revert. Let me explain why. Effectively there is a single armed service, with two battalions and a whole bunch of company sized units, including the HQ and the logs & comms units, and the navy. The navy has always been roughly company-sized (ie ~120). So separating the 'army' and the 'navy' is a mistake. The IISS data is not very good quality; here it is downright misleading. The U.S. Embassy figures of 719 + 579 for the entire armed forces match almost exactly the UN figures I quoted above of 717 + 579. The difference may be in the way they account for deceased soldiers. Both are 2010. On the other hand, the IISS figure, 1250, is an approximation they may have found from ANYWHERE. They've just released their three armed forces analysts and have just the editor of the MilBal at the moment. I usually use their data as a first rough cut for anywhere, not something to rely on. In this case, 1250 + 82 would put us over 1300, which is well outside the other two figures. Thus I would strongly recommend that in this case, with better data available, we do not quote the IISS figures on the size of the armed forces.    
 ::::::OK, that sounds very sensible. Thanks for the background knowledge!    

 ==