Is it time for mandatory national service?

Question

"To provide for the common defense by requiring that all young persons in the United State, including women, perform a period of military service OR a period of civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, and for other purposes."

FORM OF NATIONAL SERVICE.
(1) as a member of an active or reverse component of the uniformed services;
(2) in a civilian capacity that, as determined by
the President, promotes the national defense, including national or community service and homeland security.

OBLIGATION FOR YOUNG PERSONS.
It is the obligation of every citizen of the United States, and every
other person residing in the United States, who is between
the ages of 18 and 42 to perform a period of national
service.

Aside for the Air Force Our military is stretched dangerously thin. With members of the Army and Marines working on second and third full tours in Iraq.
Something drastic needs to be done to bolster their numbers.

Answer 1

Having spent 20 years in the U.S. Military, from the tail end of Nam through Desert Storm, I wholeheartedly oppose mandantory national service. My experience with draftees was that tended to be unmotivated, resentfull, and unwilling to do more than just "get by" while they waited for their tour to end. Such a person will not be willing to make the sacrifices needed in modern warfare. You cannot force someone to learn and become a proffesional, you cannot force someone to care about the their fellow troops, the mission, or even their country. The draft was fine when all that was needed was canon fodder. You gave a kid a rifle, sent him to front, and if he died no problem, plenty more where he came from. In the 1920s a functional illiterate could join the military and make a successfull career, all he needed was a strong back and no ambition. That wouldn't work today, modern combat is too complex and technical for anyone who isn't well educated and actively wanting to serve to succeed at it. During the build up to Desert Storm I was assigned to a Communications support unit for Commander Naval Forces Europe. Career people, 12-16 years even, especially in the Army, were trying frantically to get out of the service so they wouldn't have to go into combat, and that was an all volunteer force. Do you honestly think a conscript would do better? Another thing, in the mid-70s President Ford established a precedent: Flee to another country to avoid the draft, wait for the political climate to change, then all will be forgiven and you can come home, who cares about the suckers who went and died, you were too smart for that.

Answer 2

Proper deployment would not be a bad start. Finish of the Taliban then move to another front.
Having a plan to rebuild who you invade would be another good idea.
Finally, the budget for the military will only allow so many personnel. It wouldn't matter if you had a conscription. In fact, you would have a lot people who wouldn't be so ready to defend the energy reserves in the Middle East.
Waging a conventional war against terrorist guerrillas is something this military tried before and that didn't work even with a conscripted personnel base.
I only want people in the military who have a desire to perform their job, not some guy who will back out when everyone else is relying on him.

Answer 3

No, never. Inevitably, such a system would end up forcing a person to act against his or her personal, philosophical, or religious beliefs.

For instance, unless some mad man was bursting into my home, I could never in good faith or conscience shoot another person. But your new rule might force me to.

As long as the United States is behaving in an ethical way, it will never lack for enthusiastic volunteers. And if the # of volunteers is dropping off, doesn't it beg the question: is the government screwing up & causing a lack of faith from its people?

Furthermore, how do you think such a plan would be administered fairly? The poor & uneducated would end up on the front lines, and the more priveleged folks would end up behind desks, or some other safe duty that requires certain skills or schooling.

Just sounds like scary Nazi crap dressed up as a fancy ideal to me.

Answer 4

Could you imagine the backlash from that? If certain people are going to get offended by "Merry Christmas", can you imagine them protecting you? Let's see...Puss in Boots.

Answer 5

We'd have to build a wall to keep people inside the U.S. if the government did that.

Answer 6

Sounds good to me

Answer 7

It is long overdue. Make benefits dependent upon service. You can opt out, forever...

Answer 8

Free guns and ammo? Yahhhoooo

Answer 9

yes

Answer 10

Not if it leads to this!...
http://www.global-conspiracies.com/fema_concentration_camps.htm