Mandatory Service---Thoughts, ideas, opinions?

[AugustWest]

Long as everyone who serves is elligible for VA healthcare when they are discharged, I think it's a fine idea.

There are plenty of ways to serve your country and your community without being forced into servitude...

 

[leadcounsel]

Israel, I believe, has mandatory military training for it's citizens. For a nation of 6.2 million, they are one of the most formidable militaries in the world.

I support mandatory military service for American citizens. As someone else pointed out, you gotta pay your way with taxes too.

I think it would benefit us in many ways.

First, our fat and lazy kids would need to take fitness seriously in grade school through high school. This means less obesity.

Secondly, it would ground many aloof privileged people.

Thirdly, it would help steer our delinquents in the right direction by giving them training and skills that could benefit them in the working world. Sure, it will also teach them how to shoot a gun. But I think in reality it will make them respect weapons and not use them as toys and also keep them from gang activities and off the streets.

And, remember, Freedom ain't FREE.

 

[fastlane]

Thank you for explaining about the rich paying taxes. Of course they never cheat on their tax forms and they always pay their fair share of taxes, thats why they pay their CPA all that money too make sure that they don't cheat the government. Like I said the poor will be the ones forced to serve.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

It's just politics - never going to happen. The rich aren't going to let their kids be drafted. The poor won't let their kids be cannon fodder for the idle rich.

Since I teach at a school with an affluent base of students, the idea that the kids who drive Hummers and BMWs enter into a real world remake of Private Benjamin is just hilarious.

Today you can get many docs to diagnosis learning disabilities too easily. The wave of crap excuses that would have to be dealt with would be phenomenal.

Given Rangel proposed this - it is just a poke at Bush's initial failure of Iraq deployment and the war in general. The thrust is that why do the army and Guard, mostly made up of the lower economic classes have to fight for Bush's policy blunder?

 

[Handy]

But I think

And there's the problem. How much of our money do you like to bet on what you think, but don't know or even have any scientific reason for believing?


Hey, maybe youth obesity and ADHD would disappear if we gave every kid in America a brand new tennis racket? Sound stupid? Even at full retail, that many million tennis rackets would still be less than 1% of the cost of universal military training, and is just as likely of creating change.


I think we should send all US youths to CIA training. Think of the intelligence gathering possible if EVERY American is a spy.

 

[Leif]

This bill will not pass, and I'm hard-pressed to see any sort of universal peactime conscription passing into law in this country any time soon. The issue is a non-starter. Glenn E. Meyer has it correct, IMHO: this bill has more to do with partisan wrangling about the war than serious consideration of instituting a draft or draft-like measure.

The "them durn kids need to grow up ... make 'em burn off that baby fat in boot!" statements are a tired horse and the type of rhetoric voiced by each generation about its successors. Unappreciative slackers exist in every generation, have existed in every generation, and will continue to exist in every generation - and they aren't limited to the youth of any given period of history. Throwing people into military training or service as a one-stop fix to correct their apparent psychological or social shortcomings probably would produce nothing but an obese military system clotted with the people who'd rather be elsewhere, not the phalanxes of shiny young adults marching in lock step to a drumbeat of patriotism, fitness, and gratitude some envision.

And, remember, Freedom ain't FREE.

leadcounsel, I hope you can put your proverbial money where your mouth is after uttering that oft-repeated, condescending little phrase in support of mandatory military service: are you in the military, or did you serve in the military, or are you in the process of enlisting in the military? I'm not in the military, and I never served in the military, but I guarantee you I full well understand that phrase and its implications, and I didn't require military service to understand it.

 

[Heist]

I understand that a standing military provides security, but what does the military do (and I mean pro-actively do, not just existing) to defend my freedom of speech or my freedom to be armed? The military is under the authority of the government and the government is not a friend of the people.

 

[stephen426]

The military is under the authority of the government and the government is not a friend of the people.

Why is it that we have so many conspiracy theorists on this forum? Am I the one naive person here who has some faith in our government? According to Lincold during his Gettysburg Address:

that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom--and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth

Lets make sure that we are those people and that the government is composed of our people so that it can be for the people. I guess it is up to each and everyone of us to make our voices heard, whether it be at the polls or even in office.

 

[Oldphart]

I don't think people should be forced to serve but I also don't think they should have all the benefits and privledges of those who do. Heinlein laid out a pretty good system in "Starship Troopers" and I believe it would work well here too.

For those of you who haven't read it, a citizen could go to any school he wanted, take any job he liked, acquire any amount of fortune he was capable of regardless of whether or not he served in the military.

But he couldn't vote or hold public office.

Our present system is almost the complete opposite: Veterans have to struggle to get and keep jobs that are routinely held by people who went to college rather than serve in the military. They are promised a decent retirement income and medical care but usually find those things just out of reach because some politician or his kids have taken an unfair share of the pie.

Military service should be an absolute prerequisite for a position in public office.

 

[DonR101395]

I understand that a standing military provides security, but what does the military do (and I mean pro-actively do, not just existing) to defend my freedom of speech or my freedom to be armed? The military is under the authority of the government and the government is not a friend of the people.

If you think being in the military means you're just standing around "existing" you need to get out more. If we were not pro-active, we would be speaking Russian, Chinese or Korean. How much freedom of speach and right to bear arms would you have under the control of any of those countries? If the government was not a friend of the people it would take very little time (provided they could get the military to carry out the order) to make the standard of living a living nightmare.
No, I don't have rose colored glasses and like everything the government does or says, but I also don't believe they are against the people. I believe there are some people in government who are more interested in what they can reap rather than what they can sew.

 

[Leif]

Oldphart, leaving aside whether or not such a system is desirable, in what way does linking voting rights and holding public office to military service even remotely resemble the nature of American citizenship as articulated by the founders of this nation, or the documents that framed the establishment of its government, or any subsequent legislation or court decision in its entire history?

With regard to veterans vs. civilians and the job market, large amounts of money are provided by the Federal government to veterans every year in order for them to attend college. If a veteran leaves the military and attends college, then finds that he can't make it in the job market, that veteran has nobody but himself to blame. If a veteran leaves the military and chooses not to use the money accessible to him as a veteran to attend college, and then finds he can't make it in the job market, then again that veteran has nobody but himself to blame. IIRC, veterans often have a 'leg up' on obtaining Federal employment after their service as well. So, I don't buy for a minute that veterans are cut out of the job market by college kids who wouldn't serve in the military. These are choices - the veteran chose to enlist, the college student chose to enroll. Short of a wartime draft, nobody was compelled to make their choice. If the veteran chooses not to attend college, that is his choice ... but he has no cause to complain when no secure, unassailable job is waiting and lined up for him after his service without his gaining any extra education like his would-be coworkers already possess. He has even less cause to complain when avenues are provided to him to gain that education that those who did not enlist did not have.

 

[stephen426]

Our present system is almost the complete opposite: Veterans have to struggle to get and keep jobs that are routinely held by people who went to college rather than serve in the military. They are promised a decent retirement income and medical care but usually find those things just out of reach because some politician or his kids have taken an unfair share of the pie.

Oldphart,
You have stated a very sad truth about our current situation. While I considered the military after highschool, I didn't want to lose 4 years of my life. Just look at the financial costs of going to college versus going to the military. A college graduate makes a lot more money than a non-college graduate on average. A soldier's salary is pretty pathetic even though he or she will have no real expenses to speak of. There is always the risk of death or injury as well.

One of my best friends is now a captain in the airforce. If I were to go into military service, it would definately be AFTER college. Why go in as a grunt when I can go in as an officer? Officers make a lot more money and usually don't end up on the front lines as cannon fodder. My friend receives a housing allowance which is adjusted for market conditions. He is stationed in Los Angeles which is expensive as heck. With his housing allowance, he is raking over $75,000 a year (with an undergrad degree). When he sells his house, he gets the capital gains (which have been substantial). He is currently working on his masters (which the Air Force is paying for) and will probably be up for major in a few more years. This is definately the more attractive route.

Military service isn't for everyone.

 

[deanf]

Nothing but political grandstanding on the part of wrangel. His point was to turn people against the war by making them think about themselves being in real physical peril if they were drafted. This has been covered in other threads.

 

[Glock 31]

I think, it would be good for the little pampered teens and drama queens to actually have to face the fact that freedom isn't free. I would especially like to see some of the kids on the mtv sweet 16 show have to face something like this. But as some posters have mentioned, there is alot of room for abuse as far as rich versus poor and other issues I'm not really qualified to speculate on. I think it would be a good idea, especially since I myself was just some dumb kid who was bored and goalless. Then I joined the Navy and by golly, realized there's more to life than podunk, USA. But not everyone would get out of it what me and most others would.

With things the way they are today, I don't think the bill has a chance. If volunteer numbers continue to decline, then maybe it might get through. But the way it is now, the ones who volunteer for service, for the most part, are already demonstrating they have a feeling that they need to do something for their country. So we are getting the cream of the crop already as far as young adults willing to serve their country. Instituting a forced service plan like this, will in all likely hood, just force a lower quality of person into an important position of this nation's defense, who otherwise wouldn't even be there in the first place.

 

[GoSlash27]

Another point raised by Mr. Heinlein:
Civic responsibility is impossible to force upon someone who doesn't want it and can't use it.
A stint in the military does not teach the kiddies anything about the price of freedom and the ones who volunteer already understand that.

 

[Glock 31]

A stint in the military does not teach the kiddies anything about the price of freedom and the ones who volunteer already understand that.

That's not wholly true. I didn't understand anything about rights, freedom, true responsiblity, or true maturity until I joined the service.

So it did exactly that for me. But hey, lucky me. It taught me about what it takes to fight and/or serve to support the rights many of us take for granted. It showed me that freedom isn't free, but paid for by those who have the moral and civic understanding that freedom must be fought for, defended, and earned. Our forefathers fought for our freedoms and earned us all the right to enjoy that freedom. But if noone defends it, everything they fought for will have been in vain. It taught me that to be an adult, you have to be responsible for your actions. I worked in radio central, and thus was responsible for all the cryptographic communications material. You loose stuff like that because you just weren't carefull or responsible enough, and that's an all expense paid vacation to Leavenworth prison. And when I got out, I could tell, I had a much more mature understanding of our country and the world that we live in. So again, lucky me, it helped shape my life. Doesn't mean it worked for that food service attendant though.

 

[Leif]

That's not wholly true. I didn't understand anything about rights, freedom, true responsiblity, or true maturity until I joined the service.

... and I learned the civics stuff in public school and the responsibility stuff through life, both through my parents and through my own experiences. There are ways of attaining these educational and moral goals without serving in the military. I wonder how different your experience might have been if you were compelled to serve in the military contrary to your wishes, and knew that your service was of very limited duration.

I have yet to hear from those supporting some level of mandatory military service an concrete statement as to what purpose having so many people in uniform would serve other than the ostensible 'personal development' the draftees would experience in the process. To what use would all these new soldiers be put? Or is this strictly intended as an 'educational' experience for those drafted?

 

[GoSlash27]

Glock,
If you volunteered to join of your own free will you already had a sense of civic virtue even if you didn't appreciate it as you do now.
If you were the type of man to not consider military service and were press-ganged or drafted....the lesson would've been lost on you.

 

[Pampers]

I have yet to hear from those supporting some level of mandatory military service an concrete statement as to what purpose having so many people in uniform would serve

You would have a ready pool of people who understood their roll should we need to have a massive Military Buildup as we did after Pearl Harbor. (You do remember what happened at Pearl Harbor, don't you?)

In Switzerland, EVERY able bodied male serves in the Military and remains in the Reserves, available for callup until he's something like 52 Years old. And the last time Switzerland was invaided was ... .

 

[Leif]

Pampers, the catastrophe of Pearl Harbor was the result of a failure of intelligence, not a failure to have sufficient men under arms, at least as I understand it. The buildup to meet the exigencies of the Second World War was rapid and effective, so it serves as a good example of the utilization of the draft during a time of war (to which I have no objection), but holds little bearing on its possible implementation during peacetime. The fact that this country was able to prepare so many for war within such a short frame of time is indicative, at least to a certain degree, that preparing such an inordinately large pool of soldiers during peacetime in anticipation of a possible conflict is not necessary for success when that conflict arises.

The example of Switzerland often is cited, along with that of Israel. Both of those countries have historical situations quite different from that of the United States. Both have histories dominated by fears - some realized, some unrealized - that their more populous neighbors would invade en masse without warning. Since their neighbors and enemies literally lived right next door, conscription as a means for preparation for defense against invasion makes more sense. The enemies of the United States do not live next door (and no, we are not at war with Mexico contrary to what some believe). No realistic threat of a land-based invasion of the continental United States has existed for a very long time now. So, preparing that many people in advance of a remotely possible event seems like a foolhardy waste of resources at best.

I might also add that while your post addresses what the conscripts will gain from the process of conscription, it doesn't address what they would actually do other than train during their time of service.