mandatory military service

"Mandatory service in a free country? Have problem with that."

I suppose you also have a problem with mandatory taxes, obedience of laws, etc., in that case, if you are to be logically consistent. You are confusing "freedom" with "anarchy" as do many US citizens who take all this for granted.

As ocankhe writes, our brand of freedom is NOT the same thing as license. It entails responsibilities and duties as well as choices. It entails direct involvement of its citizens and, so far as is possible, direct impact on those citizens making choices for the country--choices such as war/peace, social "entitlements," laws and regulations, etc.

If citizens wish to be provided excellent healthcare, for example, without having to become bankrupt to acquire it, then those same citizens need to pass laws and appropriations to make this possible. If citizens wish to be taken seriously about their views on waging war or not, then they need to be have some experience in the matter and be taking responsibility for whatever outcomes ensue.

Though I was against the draft in the late '60s and early '70s, I have since seen a lot of draft-age males who seem to have no sense of their own citizen duty, no sense of their own adequacy or ability, few useful challenges in their lives, few goals or aims, little productive involvement in their society, etc.

I see more clearly some of the value that the draft has been to the society as a whole, and not just to the military (which, frankly, often considered it a pain in the butt). It provided opportunity and discipline and challenge and a sense of accomplishment (however much griping went on at boot camp and later) to many people, whose counterparts are presently left behind aimlessly in the dust.

Were I to choose today, I would bring back the draft, with some changes. Everyone--male and female--(regardless of having a high school diploma or not--those without would be mandated to get their GEDs during their first year of service) would serve 2 years in a military or paramilitary unit (perhaps doing CCC-type work). Those with court/legal records would NOT be exempted, but would be assigned to appropriate units. Students, those with powerful political friends, etc. would NOT be exempted.

EVERYONE would be required to contribute their time and efforts.

(Disclaimer: I am not a military recruiter, nor would I achieve any direct financial gain from this type of program. And, yes, I am a veteran--not drafted.)

Coming from a military family, all the males in my family have served, and a nephew that is coming of age where he himself is contemplating serving as well. I am not apposed to the draft being reinstated if and only if the call for more miltary troops are needed. If they want me they can have me, I will proudly give my services to assist in anyway I can.
My husband came from a country where when they graduated from school, they were immediately inducted into military service for 2 yrs and they can be brought back into military duty at anytime the govt needs them. It is maditory for all males to inlist and serve, females volunteer thier services. Freedom is not a given it is a right that has been fought for since the begining of time.
Zoe

I am also from a military family--my father served in WWII, Korea, and Vietnam. As a result of his 30 Navy career, I attended something like a dozen schools in 13 years. My sisters did a little better. His father served in 2 wars, his 1/2 brother lost his leg in WWII, and his (the uncle's) father was killed while serving as a US Navy advisor on a British submarine in WWI--about a week before the baby was born. Please don't imply that my family hasn't given enough.

I certainly do agree that "freedom isn't free", and all the rest of that stuff, BUT my point is that none of the services are whining that they don't have enough enlistments, so if there are adequate volunteers, why draft? When we had the draft, and, yes, I can remember that far back, it seems like they had less volunteers, and we needed a draft.

If we ARE going to have a draft, I'd certainly suggest more choices, i.e., not just the Army, but the other services, and allowing for community service instead of military service. There's plenty of stuff right here at home that could use some attention.


GO NAVY, BEAT ARMY!!

No, sjoe, I am not confusing anything, but thanks for the civics lesson.
I personally agree with George Q. Flynn, Professor of History at Texas Tech University. In his book on the draft he notes the draft developed as it did, not mainly because of military needs or strategy, but because of political decisions initiated by civilians with nonmilitary agendas.
I'm doing a copy/paste of an article I found while doing a search on the idea because it hits on the way I feel about this very well, and I don't have to type it all out.


Defending liberty with compulsion

As they fully intended, sociologist Charles Moskos and Washington Monthly editor Paul Glastris set tongues a-wagging with their call for renewed conscription. Appearing as it did in the Washington Post, the duo's demand for a draft to fill not just the ranks of the military, but also the needs of domestic security, reached an audience of policy-makers who were already toying with the idea of mandatory national service.

Seizing the moment, Moskos and Glastris called for "a new kind of draft: One that would focus less on preparing men for conventional combat ... than on training young men and even young women for the arguably more daunting task of guarding against and responding to terrorism at home."

Sounding a similar note, Robin Gerber of the University of Maryland's Academy of Leadership opined in the Christian Science Monitor that "[n]ational conscription for national service is what America needs to ensure that when we win the war on terrorism we have a civil society as mighty as our military."

John Derbyshire, a contributing editor to National Review, also chimed in. In response to the military's call for people familiar with languages spoken in Afghanistan, he asked, "[i]f the army needs Pashto speakers, why can't it just draft them...?"

Moskos, Glastris and Gerber rank among those who sing the praises of compelled service as an exercise in social engineering. They want to re-kindle a sense of national unity that they believe has sputtered out. Derbyshire voices a more traditional message that the benefits of citizenship must be earned by compelling the young to put their lives on the line for causes decided upon by politicians.

Peacetime audiences have been generally unreceptive to these ideas, perhaps fearing that shanghaiing unwilling young adults into federal service might be more divisive than unifying. But the September 11 terrorist attacks boosted the prominence of those who favor conscription. The U.S. was bloodied and is now embroiled in military action in Afghanistan, creating the sort of political environment suitable to rallying the troops, willing or not. Within weeks of the terrorist attacks, the Selective Service system stepped up efforts to enforce compliance by young men with the country's draft registration law.

So, as America mulls a possible return to lotteries and call-up notices, it's time to ask a basic question: Is the draft a good idea?

For starters, it's not clear that there's a crying need for more military manpower. True, an early flurry of inquiries about enlisting in the armed services produced relatively few new recruits. But if military leaders are hankering for more warm bodies in uniforms, they're keeping such desires as quiet as state secrets. The Pentagon might be expected to ask for volunteers before it forces draftees to put their lives on the line.

And yes, highly trained personnel, such as pilots, proved difficult to retain during the booming economy of the 1990s. Military pay couldn't compete with the temptations of private sector jobs. But the economy is now in the doldrums, making military service a more attractive prospect than it was just a short time ago. Even if that were not the case, conscription works best to round-up relatively unskilled cannon fodder for short terms of service. Draftees rarely stick around to acquire the skills needed for the high-tech wars of the 21st century.

A 1999 study by Doug Bandow of the Cato Institute found that "[o]nly 10 per-cent of first termers stayed in the military when service was mandatory compared with about 50 percent today under the [all-volunteer force]."

And from day one, volunteer troops tend to be better prepared than their involuntary predecessors. Bandow wrote that "[o]n the important measures of high school graduation and scores on the Armed Forces Qualifying Test (AFQT), today's military is far superior" to the draftee military of the Vietnam era.

Morale and discipline are also better. That's because the service takes only those who wish to be in uniform, and is free to discharge problem personnel. In contrast, "the services must retain draftees at all cost, lest indiscipline become a means of escape."

The latest calls for conscription go farther than schemes of the past. Gerber explicitly wants to swell the ranks of Americorps with conscripts. Moskos and Glastris plan to use draftees as border guards, customs agents and even FBI agents. They would subject us to social workers and law-enforcement officers who were forced into their jobs under threat of fine or imprisonment.

Draftees' compelled services aren't necessarily seen as all that important in themselves. Many of these new advocates of a restored draft couch their program more in terms of social goals than in filling manpower needs. Moskos and Glastris argue that the "shared experience" of the draft of World War II and thereafter "helped instill in those who served a sense of unity and moral seriousness that extended to the national culture."

But World War II was probably the most popular war in America's history. Overwhelming public approval of that conflict goes a long way toward explaining a temporary sense of national unity that can't be expected during normal periods of cultural and political disagreement. It's hard, too, to see that conscription necessarily produces such a sense of unity, when instead it fed protests during its latest implementation for the Vietnam War, and fueled violent draft riots when first enforced during the Civil War.

And the argument that the draft contributed to an Eisenhower-era sense of "unity and moral seriousness" would likely be disputed by those who remember instead a period of stifling conformity.

And what kind of "shared experience" do advocates of the draft have in mind anyway?

Ironically, Gerber advocates conscription by saying, "Now is the time when the public will be receptive to the idea of compulsory service that teaches young people the meaning of being an American."

But America is a nation founded on the principle of liberty. The War of 1812 was at least partially sparked by the British habit of seizing sailors from American ships and forcing them into naval service. The Civil War is forever identified with the abolition of slavery. Men marched and died to end the extraction of labor and life from people against their will.

Just what part of that history of resistance to compulsion will be inculcated by a new round of involuntary servitude?

Since the terrorist attacks, many pundits have claimed that the U.S. was targeted because its open, tolerant society is anathema to totalitarian religious fundamentalists. That's an arguable claim, but it is rooted in an undeniable truth: the roots of America's political culture lie in a philosophical commitment to personal freedom and limited government.

That commitment is honored only so long as the U.S. government fills its personnel needs with willing applicants. When Americans are dragooned to serve the state against their will, it's fair to ask just what it is that those conscripts are supposed to be defending.

And that sjoe is what I am talking about when I say mandatory service in a free country. I have a problem with that. It is not logically consistant to equate obedience of laws and paying taxes with forcing an American citizen into a job that they don't want. I understand it is logically consistant to you, but most certainly not to me. And I also most certainly know the difference between anarchy and freedom.
But here's a thought, all those that would have to give something back to their country could be forced into nursing, after all when we start forcing people into fighting wars they don't necessarily support we had better have enough nurses to take care of the injured right? Isn't nursing important ultimately to the war on terrorism? Why maybe we could get our own sub-department in the Homeland Security Department!

Way too long-winded.

It is well known that even in wartime there is not a MILITARY need for every man and woman of age to be conscripted into the military. That is why I suggested that the military be ONE of many possibilities for training and using skills of draftees (whether it be CCC or something else) in the public service.

One need only look around at all the trash on the streets, decrepit buildings, aging infrastructure of all kinds, the need for better management of national parks, lack of low-cost housing, on and on, to be aware that LOTS of people could be utilized in many different ways, not only in the military.

Having all these people become "lifers" in whatever are they serve is NOT a goal. Having them learn, in practice, that cultural things didn't just spring into actuality all by themselves, but were created and built by HARD work on the part of many people. They now have a turn to share the labor and personal investment, rather than taking it for granted.

I'd much rather see some of these bratty, truant, disruptive boys get sent to the military; just like I'd like to see our prisoners back to working for the community. There is a correctional facility not too far from here that used to farm it's own land and was totally self-supporting. Not anymore.

Anyway, I'm against a draft unless it's absolutely, positively necessary. And I'm not even sure when *that* is.

Wouldn't a year or two of "service" be pretty expensive for the government? Paying to employ every American between the ages of 18 and 20 seems like a big bunch of money...

Didn't read it did ya.

One need only look around at all the trash on the streets, decrepit buildings, aging infrastructure of all kinds, the need for better management of national parks, lack of low-cost housing, on and on, to be aware that LOTS of people could be utilized in many different ways, not only in the military.

So we'll just force people into taking care of whatever ills the country has?

Just for the record(and I'll try to be brief) the CCC doesn't exist anymore and hasn't since 1942. Congress never actually terminated the program, they simply quit funding it. And perhaps most relevent of all, it was a VOLUNTEER organization.

Of course the idea that young people are not disciplined and care little about civics is not a new one.

I see no hope for the future of our people if they are dependent on the frivolous youth of today, for certainly all youth are reckless beyond words. When I was a boy, we were taught to be discrete and respectful of elders, but the present youth are exceedingly wise and impatient of restraint.--Hesiod (8th century B.C.)

Short enough for ya?

There's this too.

Children today are tyrants. They contradict their parents, gobble their food, and tyrannize their teachers.
Socrates (469 BC - 399 BC)

Some things never change do they?

Excellent posts above..I truly enjoyed reading each and every one. I totally agreed with sjoe's post when I first read it, but after reading those following, I have a few concerns myself.

First and foremost..If EVERYONE is forced to serve, then what comes of the children while their parent's are both serving? We already have a generation of kids raised by grandparents..we don't need to add to that problem.

Secondly, I do not feel FORCING someone to serve will give them an appreciation of freedom. Some of the biggest cynics of our country are people who have served several years in our military. People either appreciate or they don't, you can not force appreciation on anyone.

Third, Our kids are NOT bad..how I wish people would stop encouraging them to believe they are bad. Yes, there are a few confused kids, but no more than were in my time..or in my parent's time. If we continue to feed them with negativity, then they have nothing to loose by being loosers.

Now, what I do heartedly agree with is that everyone should be forced to serve his/her community. ESPECIALLY those who are sucking the life out of the taxpayer (the criminal, the habitual welfare recipient, etc.). THOSE are the ones who should be FORCED to do community service, etc... NOT agerage joe citizen who is working his butt off trying to feed his kids. He is living up to his end of the deal of attempting to live the "american dream"..it's the other's who are trampling on his dream.

We are not a military state, we were not founded to be a military state. No one should be forced to "serve" unless there is a TRUE NEED. Only then should draft be enacted.

I really don't want some looser who lacks the drive to get his GED or HS degree defending my freedom. If he lacks the drive to better his life, he could care less about our country. I prefer to have those who are there because they CHOOSE to be.