should citizenship require military service?

Question

No, I mean as in without military service you would just be a civilian and couldnt run for political office.
Read Starship Troopers?

People! I dont mean FORCE!
It would still be volunteer, I agree fully
You have my deepest admiration and respect for the great service you are giving to our country. God bless .

Answer 1

no but that will make it easier to apply for citizenship

Answer 2

I will be honest, I like the idea of it, but it would never work. Just because I felt strongly enough to join the Marines after I graduated high school doesn't mean that everyone else should also. There are many that are not capable, or not willing, to serve the military, although I do think that everyone should serve the public in some capacity. There are already many that do, by volunteering their time with groups such as the Peace Corps, Red Cross, and those that volunteer their time and money through private organizations such as the Salvation Army, Goodwill, USO, local churches, and any number of other charities, and this makes them good, honorable people.

We already have Selective Service in place (more commonly known as the draft), which requires all able bodied men from 18-40 to register. I do think that we should take that one step further, and require women to register also. Not as a sexist thing (you want to be treated the same as men, so you should have to do what we do; nothing like that). While women are not allowed to serve in "combat" positions, there have been any number of cases in the last thirty years where women have served with distinction when combat happens around them. But, of all the jobs listed in the military, only about 25% of them are considered front-line, "combat" roles, which means that there are thousands of jobs that are open to women.

There have been several cases of forced conscription, outside of wartime, that make the case against compulsory service. For instance, the Soviet military had a compulsory two year service requirement. As a result, the Soviet military, while being a huge juggernaut, was very poorly trained, as the service time (after training) was something like 15-18 months, where as many of the positions in the US may receive as much as 12 months of training before they actually see an operational unit. As a consequnce, members of a volunteer military tend to be better trained, and the attitude is very different. They are there because they want to be, not because they have to be, and that can make a huge impact on the effectiveness of a nation's military.

On the other hand, Israel also has a compulsory service requirement, but they have one of the most successfull military records in modern history (since the nation of Israel was founded in the late-1940's).

You must also look at the spirit of the founding fathers of the United States. They created a nation where people have the right to choose if they want to serve the military, and conscription was to be an emergency option, only to be used in times of need. If you take away that option (as a general rule, rather than the exception that it was intended to be), you take away a part of the core of the American spirit.

While I don't think that military service should be required to be in public office, I do think that it should be a requirement to serve as President. If you are going to be in charge of the military, you should have some experience in how it works.

Answer 3

I think military service for citizenship would be a could idea.

In regards to immigration into the country military service would be an act of fidelity and allegiance.

In regards for attaining political office.

Maybe even with in regards to the right to vote.

As far as compulsory service that would be debatable. What about females, would females be required, they must be or they could not be consider equal citizens? I think that 3 years in the Army would be good for my 18 year old son but not for my 18 year old daughter.

The US was birthed in the belief of the minutemen, the citizen soldier. The concept that the nation is defended by persons with a vested interest in the nation carries weight for it carries with it a commitment. A easy question to ask would be why would not want to defend your country, when it is a country governed by the people.

In Germany the have conscription, males or called up between the ages of 18-26 to serve in the German army or do community service, which is twice as long. The idea is not too bad.

But I do not think anyone likes being required to do anything not of there own free will.

Your question has merit, and there are a number of interesting answers.
Thanks

Answer 4

One one hand, part of the reason our military is so strong is because it's an all volunteer military. People who want to serve do so, and those who do not want to serve, do not have to. This is actually a strength. It can't be measured in numbers or statistics, but as a soldier myself who is actually currently in Iraq right now, I can honestly say that knowing everyone around me volunteered to be here, enhances my trust in them greatly. Forcing people to join a military branch of service would bolster the numbers on paper, but it would have some severe side effects:

1) Decreased morale among troops.
2) Even less small unit training, and an even bigger strain on equipment and supplies, and the military budget as a whole. Part of our strength is that our army can afford tanks, bradleys, helicopters, body armor, night vision for EVERY troop, and so on, because our numbers aren't that vast. Fewer troops, better equiped. Forcing everyone to join would change this.
3) It's not necessary, from a military stand point, at this point in time. We have the draft if we ever need a rapid influx of more soldiers, but for now our forces are doing fairly well with the numbers they have.

Besides, the military lifestyle isn't for everybody. Especially not in this day and age. The military is a completely different lifestyle than civilian life. Some people love it. Some people hate it.

I can also honestly say that military service has little to do with politics. I'm a medic, and one day if I decided to run for a political office, I doubt my medical skills would help me much in the campaign. Sure, I could use "I was in the army" to boost support, but that's all it would really amount to. Truth is, I'll stick with the medical stuff, and let the politicians stick with the political stuff. Fine by me.

Before I joined the army I liked the way Starship troopers did citizenship. I thought the idea of doing service in the military before gaining full citizenship was a good idea. Now that I'm in the service, I've changed my mind.

Different people have different strengths, and different things to offer the country. Not everyone needs to go off to war, to do their part. Let the one's who want to be soldiers be soldiers, and the ones who want to be painters, be painters, I say :)

Answer 5

Well, I am not sure about citizenship. I think that once you are born in country you are a citizen. I do, however, think that all capable male citizens should have to do 2 years military service. This not only strengthens the military, but also means that there are well trained citizens in case of emergency. Also, there is benefit from the experiences in the military.

Answer 6

No. I remember the stuff in Starship Troopers. I say no, because we are Citizen Soldiers in the US and not Soldier Citizens.

Sometimes I fear we put too much emphasis on military folks and forget that all Americans contribute to the greatness of this nation. Working men and women have made this nation's economy one of the greatest in history. And our technological achievements ensure that our military will always have the best possible tools to achieve the objective.

And all American citizens stand ready to defend their country...when in fact it is actually threatened.

Answer 7

I think your question is aimed toward others wanting to become permanent citizens. It is a great idea I believe.
I also think we should have a requirement similar to that of Israel or South Korea does that at 18yrs. of age. all males serve a certain time.
I believe it would be a great thing for our country as a whole.
A lot of young kids make bad choices early at age 18 or so and end up on the streets or in other bad situations that they never seem to get out of.
It is a touchy subject, but i believe would make our country more unified even at older ages.

Answer 8

Service, but not just military service. Something similar to Peace Corps, Job Corps, would be great. There should be no exclusions except disabled persons. No "George Bush" type of cushy duty and AWOL months. A mandatory service obligation would give many young people time to grow up more before college and careers.

Answer 9

Socrates ... You know, I think you may have a good idea, there. I'm not ready to give it my total support, but I've often wondered the same thing.

The point is that we're getting increasingly divided and the weight of defending the country is being carried by only a loyal and patriotic few. Meanwhile, the others are sitting back watching Idol and playing their Playstations.

This imbalance cannot go on indefinitely and something such as you've suggested is going to be needed to better unite us ... because it's true that divided we fall.

Answer 10

The Swiss does this for all of it's people, and it has served their country well.....they were the only country in the European country's that were not involved, attacked, over-ran, etc. during WW1 or WW2. Every country involved in those wars made sure that NO SOLDIER ever crossed into Switzerland because every citizen is a military soldier, and every soldier has a gun.
Second point, ever notice that the Swiss has the lowest crime rate of any country in the world??? I wonder why that is....hmm...every citizen is a soldier.
Would that help America, heck yea.

Answer 11

I fully agree with your question as corrected.

If you want to run for political office, as a minimum Governor or higher, you must have served HONORABLY in the military.

As a retired soldier I can tell you it is a bitter pill to swallow when your Commander In Chief is sending you into harms way, and you know that he dodged going into combat himself.

The reason I say a State Governor as minimum is because the Governor is the Commander of their state's National Guard.

How can one have say in running the military if they have never served in the military HONORABLY? There are enough checks and balances in our government to prevent someone from grabbing all the power and forming a dictatorship.

20 years of getting good leadership punctuated by politicians running rampid and treating our military like unwanted redheaded stepchildren.