Posted on Mar 8, 2017
If the United States required that all persons serve 1 term (2-4 years) in the Armed Forces, would that help or harm our society over time?
886K
9.25K
3.2K
3.2K
3.2K
0
Responses: 1917
I would say it would be a good thing for the country IF, and only IF, there were no deferments allowed, except for people with disabilities, all 7 uniformed services took in personnel, not just the Army, and there were possible alternatives (such as serving in the Peace Corps, Reserves, National Guard, Americorps, etc.).
Too many of the privileged never serve, in fact, I think it's less than 2% of the population now that has ever served. There are too many people in this country that don't have a clue what civic duty means, they're into doing what's best for themselves, not helping their fellow citizens, etc. Politicians should be required to serve before beginning elected office, and I could go on and on. And I would make it equally apply to women as well.
Too many of the privileged never serve, in fact, I think it's less than 2% of the population now that has ever served. There are too many people in this country that don't have a clue what civic duty means, they're into doing what's best for themselves, not helping their fellow citizens, etc. Politicians should be required to serve before beginning elected office, and I could go on and on. And I would make it equally apply to women as well.
(1.3K)
(0)
(1)
(0)
Capt James F. (Jim) Bard, Jr.
When I enlisted as a high school dropout, they were accepting anyone who could pass the entry exam. Now you must also have completed high school. I served 26.5 years during which I completed college and was commissioned. Unfortunately, kids of today can not even complete step one without HS. Everyone should at least have the opportunity to enlist.
(0)
(0)
SGT Gary Gray
The Army was also a way out for non-violent offenders. might be something to considerCapt James F. (Jim) Bard, Jr. -
(1)
(0)
Were this to come to pass, I see it as affecting our readiness negatively.
1) A vast majority of service age males couldn't pass the physical standards as it stands now. Its bad enough that the Army allows soldiers to graduate from Basic Training without ever meeting the minimum scores for the APFT. Soldiers only have to score 50 points per event and they will go on to AIT.
2) Economically, the US could not afford to have everyone serve. At some point, I could see Congress cutting pay in order to pay the salaries of all of those on active duty. Or they would raise taxes in order to pay for the additional manpower.
3) The turnover of soldiers would leave a vast majority of the services in a constant state of flux. In the mid to late 80's, the Army Cohort system brought in a battalion's worth of new soldiers who were together from day one. From personal experience, my platoon suffered an almost 67% attrition rate for the three year life cycle of the cohort we received in April 1989. Of the 23 soldiers we received that month, only 7 were still with the platoon on their contracted ETS date. I don't see mandatory service being any different.
4) Congress will still ensure there will be deferrals and you can bet their kids won't ever serve. They'll get out of service some way, some how.
Lastly, this, just like the talk of bringing back the draft is just designed to destroy our military readiness as you don't fix something that ain't broke. But that's just my jaded opinion.
1) A vast majority of service age males couldn't pass the physical standards as it stands now. Its bad enough that the Army allows soldiers to graduate from Basic Training without ever meeting the minimum scores for the APFT. Soldiers only have to score 50 points per event and they will go on to AIT.
2) Economically, the US could not afford to have everyone serve. At some point, I could see Congress cutting pay in order to pay the salaries of all of those on active duty. Or they would raise taxes in order to pay for the additional manpower.
3) The turnover of soldiers would leave a vast majority of the services in a constant state of flux. In the mid to late 80's, the Army Cohort system brought in a battalion's worth of new soldiers who were together from day one. From personal experience, my platoon suffered an almost 67% attrition rate for the three year life cycle of the cohort we received in April 1989. Of the 23 soldiers we received that month, only 7 were still with the platoon on their contracted ETS date. I don't see mandatory service being any different.
4) Congress will still ensure there will be deferrals and you can bet their kids won't ever serve. They'll get out of service some way, some how.
Lastly, this, just like the talk of bringing back the draft is just designed to destroy our military readiness as you don't fix something that ain't broke. But that's just my jaded opinion.
(420)
(5)
PO1 Charles Babcock
SPC Joseph Nastasi - Beg to differ with you on at least one point, Illegals should NEVER be allowed into the Military since its against the law for them even being IN the USA. Legal Immigrants of all types should be allowed to serve however.
(4)
(0)
CW3 Richard Doty
We had a draft during Vietnam. I was in an all-volunteer unit, so I really can't speak to how it might have affected us operationally. As noted here, there are going to be a number of young people who can't pass basic, can't get a clearance, etc., so you've wasted a lot of time and money for nothing. It doesn't seem to be a very productive approach to manning the military.
(1)
(0)
CW3 Richard Doty
SPC Joseph Nastasi - "No public office without prior service no exceptions." That's pushing into the territory of "Starship Trooper" (more so the book, not the movie): No citizenship without serving. I get the sentiment, but I'm not sure that's a good approach. There are those who can't serve for any number of reasons. I don't think they should be excluded from public office.
(1)
(0)
I only want people serving that want to serve. This would be a bad idea and would do more harm than good. Our military could not handle that many people each year, and the cost would be enormous.
(313)
(0)
MSG Dennis Lane
When I knew I was about to be drafted, I enlisted so that I could have some voice in what I was going to be doing during my required service time. I knew nothing about the military; I was not in great shape; I did what I had to do to survive. In the process, I grew up. I predict that would happen for lots of kids if the draft were reinstated.
My father was a WWII vet, and he knew his son would not be much of a soldier. So he was surprised when I reenlisted. Later, when I got orders for Drill Sergeant School, Dad said I would not be successful. He was wrong, and I loved it so much I extended.
The draft ended while I was a Drill Sergeant; before too long, we integrated women into the Regular Army (women were only authorized to be WACs prior to that point).
So I experienced the draft Army, and I experienced the Volunteer Army (AKA VOLAR back then). The voices in this thread, both positive and negative, ring true. The Draft grows a person up, but it also brings in malcontents who will never grow up. The draft poses leadership challenges, but so does a volunteer force. I think the most positive thing about a mandatory, all-inclusive requirement for some time of universal international service is that it would require people from all walks of life to interact and learn from others, especially with visits to places where things aren't just like where they grew up. They appreciate home better and realize that some things are worth extra effort.
My father was a WWII vet, and he knew his son would not be much of a soldier. So he was surprised when I reenlisted. Later, when I got orders for Drill Sergeant School, Dad said I would not be successful. He was wrong, and I loved it so much I extended.
The draft ended while I was a Drill Sergeant; before too long, we integrated women into the Regular Army (women were only authorized to be WACs prior to that point).
So I experienced the draft Army, and I experienced the Volunteer Army (AKA VOLAR back then). The voices in this thread, both positive and negative, ring true. The Draft grows a person up, but it also brings in malcontents who will never grow up. The draft poses leadership challenges, but so does a volunteer force. I think the most positive thing about a mandatory, all-inclusive requirement for some time of universal international service is that it would require people from all walks of life to interact and learn from others, especially with visits to places where things aren't just like where they grew up. They appreciate home better and realize that some things are worth extra effort.
(4)
(0)
Cpl Duane Hallman
I believe the premise in Heinlein’s “Starship Troopers” where all service was voluntary however you could not vote or serve in public office unless you had served. Even if you are blind, deaf, dumb, or all three there is always some job you can qualify for. Citizenship really needs to be earned to be appreciated.
(2)
(0)
(1)
(0)
SGT Gary Gray
SGT Tim Tobin - I might be a good Idea inb ROCT or Public Service was High School requtrment. The subject would teach service and civialtude.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next