Posted on Mar 8, 2017
SCPO Weapons Department Enlisted Advisor
701K
8.74K
3.07K
2.8K
2.8K
0
D43e4ac0
A handful of countries have or have had a policy similar to this (all males), I want to know how you think it would affect the United States and whether it should be all males or all persons.
Avatar feed
Responses: 1817
MSgt Neil Greenfield
1.3K
1.3K
0
Edited 7 y ago
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.
(1.3K)
Comment
(0)
Bonnie Hester
Bonnie Hester
2 mo
To MSgt Neil Greenfield, you are right on!!!
(0)
Reply
(0)
CAPT Kevin M. McGuinness
CAPT Kevin M. McGuinness
2 mo
A great concept, not yet a plan, but on its way. It wouldn’t work if limited to military for a number of reasons. So expanding to other areas of public service would have to be considered, as you suggest.
(1)
Reply
(0)
SP5 Rick Herman
SP5 Rick Herman
1 mo
Right on the mark, Neil! Mandatory service, with the alternatives to active military service, would be life-changing for the individuals, and a collective plus for the country.
(0)
Reply
(0)
SGT David Schrader
SGT David Schrader
7 d
I’m an old veteran and would not be opposed to reinstating the draft requiring two years of active duty. Regardless of zip code, financial status, religion or color. I would like to see comprehensive criminal background checks on everyone prior to admittance into our military. Sounds a bit harsh, but necessary now days.
It’s a great opportunity for young people to learn discipline, and special skills to help cope with real life situations and also learn a useful trade that might help them with employment and career opportunities after military life.
As far as females are concerned, there should be equal opportunities in all military fields, but I also believe that standards and qualifications should be standardized. There should not be different standards for females and males. Everyone should be capable of doing the job regardless of gender.
(0)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
LTC Trent Klug
403
398
5
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.
(403)
Comment
(5)
SMSgt Frank Mitchell
SMSgt Frank Mitchell
2 mo
This policy is in effect in Turkey but the military is not paid by the government. Families must provide clothing, food and just about everything for 2 years. i VOTE yes to that! I am not sure how it workks in Israel but they have this policy as well. Do you think that the USA can afford a population of 100% veterans? This is one screwed MSgt in MY Air Force! my service has gone to hell with all their policies!
(0)
Reply
(0)
SSG Richard Bladl
SSG Richard Bladl
30 d
SGT Walter Drumm - Disgree, when we had the draft many draftees continued in service and even retiring. We need some sort of draft because today's minimum requirements to enlist are way over board and ridicules in many cases. i spent 8+ yrs active and saw many that continued their service beyond the 2 yr active commitment.
(0)
Reply
(0)
CPT Special Forces Officer
CPT (Join to see)
7 d
Sir,
I understand your position and your concerns. The draft (at least in WWII) brought about a certain homogeneity to the American male experience. For all non-hackers, they will stay in the military until they are "hackers". Only the best of all inductees would be retained in service (there is always some inducement that can be found). The remainder would be assigned (in no particular order) to the NG, USAR, with something at the bottom like "Armed Forces - Inactive Reserve". It would also be desirable to come up with a way of getting them in for refresher training at least every other year or every four years.
(0)
Reply
(0)
SPC Joseph Nastasi
SPC Joseph Nastasi
6 d
agree and also should be 3 years mandatory for illegals and immigrants... also once ets w/ honorable all vets should have option and be allowed to carry firearm in all 50 states and 1st in line to be cops firemen and public office.... no public office without prior service no exceptions
(0)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
Sgt Field Radio Operator
302
302
0
Edited 7 y ago
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.
(302)
Comment
(0)
Sgt Field Radio Operator
Sgt (Join to see)
4 mo
A1C Alexa Cosson - I agree Alexa. Great response! Our country would benefit if everyone felt that they had a stake in its success.
(2)
Reply
(0)
SPC Wheeled Vehicle Mechanic
SPC (Join to see)
3 mo
While I understand where u are coming from. As a former Teacher and coach I can tell u that its either military service or we send them to 3rd world countries for two year as a part of their HS curriculum. Make them live at that level for two years.
Either way I can tell u 99% of the kids now a days could not survive military basic or having to do the things they would need to live, and I mean just get by.
And what I would do is those that do not want to live here get to be sent to the 3rd world country of their choice and dropped off with nothing from the USA and they lose everything America provided for them.
(0)
Reply
(0)
SFC James Smith
SFC James Smith
3 mo
Great comment although I believe some form of service is better than paying them to sit at home in their parents house on the govt dime. The entitled attitude of the young people today is frightening
(1)
Reply
(0)
Bonnie Hester
Bonnie Hester
2 mo
At last, I am so pleased to see this discussion! Bring back the Draft and have men & women serve in the range of Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, Coast Guard, yes, hospitals training to be nurses, diagnostic technicians doctors, firemen, MPs. Since the 60s's that generation has had it so easy and are not patriotic, many don't even bother to vote. They know very little about our countries history or history in general. Many are not loyal to our great USA.
(3)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small

Join nearly 2 million former and current members of the US military, just like you.

close