Is it Time for Compulsory Military Service?

[DFWdem]

I believe the time has come for compulsory military service for ALL Americans. Many countries around the world have this requirement. I'm not familiar with all of the specifics, but something along the lines of 2 years of service required immediately upon graduation from high school (or 18 years of age for those who don't graduate) with NO deferments, exemptions, or loopholes for anyone - everyone serves their 2 years. This will potentially put every young American adult in harm's way, not just the ones who couldn't afford to pay for college without the GI Bill. If we had compulsory service maybe it would make the gravity and seriousness of war to those who make the decisions to go to war, and by extension limit our military endeavors to situations which threaten national security. What does DU think about this issue?

On edit: Perhaps military or civil service, based on some early replies to the thread. Service to country in some capacity.

[Caleb]

1. No draft

I'm not fighting for PNAC.

[BlueEyedSon]

3. But wouldn't it be great for PNAC to fight for PNAC?

[DFWdem]

5. Not a draft...

Compulsory service. Whether there is a war or not, service is required of everyone.

[SammyWinstonJack]

12. What the difference?

At the end of the day, what's the difference? Either way, one is being forced to serve. I don't see a difference, sorta like the stop loss/ back door draft going on right now to keep troops in past their original commitment. And I see never ending war with this bunch. If you want to join up, knock yourself out.

[DFWdem]

16. The difference being....

Drafts are instituted specifically to get more men to fight wars. Compulsory service would be in effect whether we are at war or not.

[seemslikeadream]

Did you miss something?

WE ARE AT WAR!
NEVERENDING WAR!

Let the children of those that wanted this war fight it out, not my children.

[DFWdem]

10. I agree 100%

But how else do we get the children of those who wanted this war to fight it without compelling all Americans to serve 2 years, at age 18, in some capacity in the armed forces? I don't mean start it tomorrow. Perhaps announce that the program will take effect in 2007 (or some other date).

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

2. No way! Firstly, I will not support nor recommend my

children to support this government until it is purged of all of the lunatics. Secondly, I am a pacifict, and have been most of my life.

Now if you want to enlist, please, go ahead. It is your choice.

[wli]

4. not sure how much it would help

There are always loopholes for the rich. This would just make them less visible.

[getmeouttahere]

6. Good thing I already served...

and if they think they can draft me, well, come and get me! I won't fight for BushCo, period.

[KansDem]

20. My children will not fight for BushCo, only to have their service...

trashed by the GOP when they return (ie, McCain, Clelland, and Kerry).

No way will they get my children! No way...!!! :grr:

[LynzM]

7. I like the idea of....

Military OR Civil Service, similar to what Germany has. 12 months military or 18 months civil, your choice. Workers to help in nursing homes, schools, etc. That way, everyone gives back in some way or other, but it does not make military service compulsory, just service itself.

[kenny blankenship]

8. One problem with *universal* military service

that you haven't addressed is that obviously it would suck in many more people than we need--even if we assume that we need as many personnel as we have now. Some countries do require more or less universal military service but they are always much smaller and often more belligerent than we are. Armed forces need many more skilled people in supporting technical tasks than they used to and a policy geared to 2-years-in-and-out won't help there.

[DFWdem]

14. I'm sure there are many issue I haven't addressed

I'm interested in having a conversation on it, discussing pros and cons. Other nations have programs of this type. I think it would make members of Congress think long and hard before committing our military to a war if members of Congress knew their sons and daughters would be on the front lines.

[Misskittycat]

9. No way. I'm not putting every 18 year old in this country under the mind

control of this scary government. Even civilian service would be unacceptable because of the possibility of creating a lock-step bunch of Stepford young citizens.

Also, we'd have to pay everyone and that would bust the deficit even further.

[Ron Green]

21. The pay would be nominal.

If it's compulsory service, the wage would be subsistence only, with housing, food and clothing provided. 18- to 20-year-olds don't have the need of a full living wage, and the large bonuses necessary to maintain a mercenary force wouldn't be needed.

[kenny blankenship]

25. But not the cost!

there's always a temptation when a country has raised a vast army like this to try to find a way for it to pay for itself.
Think about every highschool senior in the country in uniform for 2 years. Suddenly we have an Army even larger than China's.
Look out world--we only have one marketable skill and that's killing people and blowin' shit up!

[Ron Green]

28. It wouldn't all be military.

As others in this thread have pointed out, a compulsory national service would include all kinds of service in infrastructure, medicine, environment and international development AS WELL AS a military.

I'm sick to death of people on this board (present company excepted, of course) who are willing to let big private money direct the course of this nation, when we should all be committed to service. The only way for people to have a stake in our country is for people to engage as citizens first, THEN as consumers.

[ComerPerro]

11. No with this corrupt warmongering motherfucker in office

[SteppingRazor]

13. What about pacifists and conscientious objectors?

There should be some sort of civil service alternative -- The Peace Corps or something. Then I might think about this.

[DFWdem]

22. True

The issue with civil service, though, is that the priviledged would always manage to get their children in a civil branch rather than a military branch. But I agree, there would need to be an alternative for pacifists. I guess they could always be military cooks or motor pool mechanics.

[Freddie Stubbs]

15. Congress voted on that exact idea last year

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2004/roll494.xml

It's good to see that both parties can agree on something.

[DFWdem]

18. I see it was very popular with them

2 in favor, 402 against LOL Must not have been an exemption for Congressional leaders' children written into the bill.

[acmejack]

17. Yes it is

Serving ones Country should be required, it is the case most industrialized nations. Not only filling roles in the military, but in civil service like infrastructure support.

Can't and won't happen as long as long as the privatization era lasts, though. Service is antithetical to the concept of the accumulation of private wealth accumulation.

[unrepuke]

19. I agree with DFWdem. I barely beat the Viet Nam draft by

enlisting at the last minute (Navy) 4 years is too long for somebody that has other things to do with their life. But I have always felt service to the government in some capacity would be good for everybody - handicapped as well. Also Boot Camp alone has some training advantages for knucklehead teenagers that few get at home. And by "government service" I don't mean the elite children should be deferred by political involvement, since they plan on running the country when they inherit it anyway - no sir, they get to police cigarette butts and do pushups in the mud right alongside the rest of us trailer trash.

2 years of it sounds fair to me.

[JVS]

23. Never

[Occulus]

24. I *will not* serve in this nation's military forces until I can do so

openly and without fear of being beaten/killed. That goes especially true for a draft or any form of 'compulsory' service.

I'll go to jail before I fight for a country that legislates against me directly, will not acknowledge my lifetime commitments (via a marriage license), will throw me out of the military were I to try to serve voluntarily, even during a "time of war", will beat me up with a baseball bat just for walking down the street holding hands with my partner...

Get my drift? This country does not deserve my service, voluntarily or not. Not until it starts treaing me like a human being, too.

[shadowknows69]

33. well said kgfnally

n/t

[sintax]

26. NO! Wrong question!

It's time for reduction in forces, reduction in spending, reduction in bases here and abroad.

6,000 bases in US is insane and toxic

725 bases in 132 countries is insane and polluting every corner of the globe

The US is the most violent nation in the world, to think we need to advance the militaristic capacities of this country is madness.

How about service to the Organic agriculture sector or the tree planting sector.

We live in the culture of Death- Time to change and ask different questions.

[Book Lover]

27. We'd have to amend the Constitution to allow for slavery again

The 13th Amendment forbids involuntary servitude, which is what the draft is. If Rangel and his ilk continute with this draft nonsense, this is the strongest argument to stop that from happening.

[KG]

29. Is it time to de-militarize the US?

that's a notion i can get behind.

[mattclearing]

30. That gets the big Hell No.

There's no freedom if you can't choose not to serve.

I'd die before taking the life of another person on orders from someone with motives I may or may not agree with.

There's nothing noble about state-sanctioned murder.

[brandxj]

31. wow

Glad to hear that many feel fine not to defend the freedoms that we all have in this country. True many things nowadays suck, but it could be way worse if it wasn't for the people currently serving in the military.

[mattclearing]

35. I defend those freedoms by exercising them...

...and allowing others to do the same.

[ulysses]

32. erm, that'd be a no.

[stanwyck]

34. The current system would be perfect

if we had competent leadership. But when we have an administration which lies to the people, is thoroughly indebted to corporate interests, and doesn't personally feel the human cost of war, then we're in trouble. War is easy. It serves their purpose of kowtowing to the military industrial complex. The human cost is collateral damage. Their kids don't serve. They didn't serve. It's all just one more marketing plan on how to line their pockets.
We don't need compulsory service.
We need our military to be used honestly and judiciously.

[tomg]

36. Actually, I like the the idea of compulsory service

provided that it encouraged non-military service for all between the ages of 18 and 21, and allowed anyone to opt into medical service, literacy programs, low-cost housing, community renewal. Think of it as CCC and similar programs during the Depression. Of course, including a modified version of the GI Bill ( particularly regarding higher education opportunities) would also work for me.

Right now the three biggest "holding tanks" for people between the ages of 18 and 22 are the army, colleges, and prisons. College costs are skyrocketing ( and pell and other grants are being eviscerated), and that leaves the army as the only "viable" option for a large number of lower-income kids.

With that said, I wouldn't trust the current clowns to even begin to institute a program like this.

[Lannes]

37. Slippery slope

First this kind of service is compulsory then something else is etc....
If another country declared war on us and we didnt have the capabilty to defeat them without a draft Ok.Otherwise I believe it could lead to abuses.