Posted on Jan 13, 2014
Should military service be a requirement of citizenship?
17K
185
126
16
16
0
I know Israel has some sort of requirement. I was wondering we in the military thought. It is my opinion, that a two year requirement would be beneficial on many fronts. I think the average citizen would pay more attention to the politics of our nation, and therefore be more educated on who they vote for. What are your thoughts?
Posted in these groups: 
Military service
Military service
Posted 12 y ago
Responses: 72
0
0
0
0
0
0
I respectfully disagree. Compulsory service is compulsory servitude, also known as SLAVERY. I believe we should maintain our voluntary force, and do away with the "Selective Service" system. If the cause is just there will be plenty of volunteers, and if the cause is not just then perhaps we shouldn't engage in such an endeavor. Any requirement to serve leaves politicians with an involuntary force to do with as they please.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Yes....if you are talking about universal service by all able bodied citizens.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
somehow this got merged incorrectly, the following is a response to the inverse question Citizenship for service. I am editing and providing the question first, then my reply:
Citizenship for Service
SSG Joseph G., Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, MD
[login to see] _armyssg
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/117810/gop-wont-vote-give-illegal-immigrants-who-are-veterans-green-cards
What are your thoughts on citizenship for service?
OK.. where to begin.
First of all, there IS an 'express lane' to citizenship for those who entered the country legally, received a green card and decided to join one of the branches of the military. I fully support this and hope that they continue with the policy.
Now to the article. This article is in reference to those who are in the country ILLEGALLY and manage (somehow) to join the military. First of all, their enlistments should immediately be voided (fraudulent enlistment - not a citizen nor a green card holder). Now they illegally entered the country and illegally joined the military and they should be rewarded with a green card for this??? REALLY????? Who thinks this way?? Am I the only one to see the irony here??
I am also against providing an 'escape clause' whereby those who are in the country illegally would be 'rewarded' with a green card for serving. We are in the midst of a drawdown and recruiters are turning away around 80% of applicants as it is, so... would it make sense to allow illegals to serve and reward them with a green card when citizens are being turned away????
**SIGH**
Citizenship for Service
SSG Joseph G., Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, MD
[login to see] _armyssg
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/117810/gop-wont-vote-give-illegal-immigrants-who-are-veterans-green-cards
What are your thoughts on citizenship for service?
OK.. where to begin.
First of all, there IS an 'express lane' to citizenship for those who entered the country legally, received a green card and decided to join one of the branches of the military. I fully support this and hope that they continue with the policy.
Now to the article. This article is in reference to those who are in the country ILLEGALLY and manage (somehow) to join the military. First of all, their enlistments should immediately be voided (fraudulent enlistment - not a citizen nor a green card holder). Now they illegally entered the country and illegally joined the military and they should be rewarded with a green card for this??? REALLY????? Who thinks this way?? Am I the only one to see the irony here??
I am also against providing an 'escape clause' whereby those who are in the country illegally would be 'rewarded' with a green card for serving. We are in the midst of a drawdown and recruiters are turning away around 80% of applicants as it is, so... would it make sense to allow illegals to serve and reward them with a green card when citizens are being turned away????
**SIGH**
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
That's a complicated question. On one hand, it would increase military and political awareness for the vast majority of citizens; although, this would be the only significant benefit. The list of drawbacks is a bit more extensive. Primarily, and this is my personal opinion, it is time consuming enough from a leadership perspective to motivate sailors who made the decision to serve willingly for any of a long list of reasons. I couldn't imagine compounding that with motivating those that have even less desire to be there. There is also the increased financial burden on the nation. It is a constant struggle to get personnel the schools that would benefit both them and the command. Again, compound this with the added expense of enlisting every eligible citizen and the rapidly-depleting defense budget would be practically non-existent.
In summary, I believe the negatives outweigh the benefits in this particular case. And, to echo many of the other responses on this thread, citizens owe nothing to the country just by virtue of being born citizens. Military service has been, and should continue being, a volunteer service.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
No individual should be required to serve. The beauty of the United State Armed Forces is the fact that we are an all volunteer army. However, we need to focus on restoring the pride for our country within the each person. Whenever this type of attitude exist there would be so many volunteers who willing want to serve their country that we could then go back to just choosing the best candidates to make us the strongest and most prepared military in the world. God Bless the U.S.A.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
No individual should be required to serve. The beauty of the United State Armed Forces is the fact that we are an all volunteer army. However, we need to focus on restoring the pride for our country within the each person. Whenever this type of attitude exist there would be so many volunteers who willing want to serve their country that we could then go back to just choosing the best candidates to make us the strongest and most prepared military in the world. God Bless the U.S.A.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
How about a compromise, the Starship Troopers approach? You don't have to perform military service, but if you don't, then you're not officially a citizen, and thus, not entitled to a vote.
Personally, I don't like the idea, even though I presented it as a compromise. As uber conservative as a lot of military folk can be, I can see this leading to our country resembling the love child of Fox News, the Bible, Duck Dynasty and Honey Boo Boo...
(0)
(0)
SSG Gerhard S.
I like Heinlein, he did good work, I've read a great many of his works, and I'm a great fan of Starship troopers. BUT Unforunately, Heinlein was a big government guy.
Our country was founded on a SMALL government Federal System which our Constitution divided branches of government with equal powers, but consciously designed them to be argumentative, contrary, and staggered to prevent ANY consolidation of power.
The idea was to keep the Federal government constrained to "enumerated powers" and to leave ALL other powers to the States or to the People.
The end product of Heinlein's model leaves us with an all powerful Federal government and a coerced citizenry to do it's bidding. His argument suggests that "service" is "voluntary": If you want to vote, or if you want to be a citizen, then you WILL serve. Otherwise, you will live at the whim of those who do, with no voice in the matter, and with fewer rights than those who did serve.
Clearly, I have nothing against VOLUNTARY service. I voluntarily served 22 years as a US Army Paratrooper, and led a Long Range Surveillance Team on a tour in Iraq, and I work as a Lieutenant in a busy Fire department in my hometown.
My point here is not that people should not serve. Instead, I would suggest that people should be free to do what they want to do.
For instance, I can make the argument that joining the Army at 19 years of age retarded my progression in the workforce, others who went to college, were making far more than I when I ETS'ed from Active Duty. Though I can also make the argument that my Military experience has benefited me in the workplace, and I would not trade that experience for anything.
BUT, let me ask you, if people like Bill Gates, or Steve Jobs were incentiveized to give 2 years of service, military or other, is it possible that they may have not have created Microsoft or Apple as they served in the military, or as a Bureaucrat sitting behind a desk adhering to Federal regulations? I would suggest that such service would greatly inhibit people in their creative prime.
Where would we be without Jobs and Gates Today... Certainly not where we are.
Lastly, I would like to add that I have read "ATLAS SHRUGGED" by Ayn Rand a half dozen times or so, but I've only read Heinlein's works once. I would highly recommend any of Rand's works for a different perspective on "Human Action"... which, by the way is the name of a GREAT book on economics written by Ludwig VonMises.
Our country was founded on a SMALL government Federal System which our Constitution divided branches of government with equal powers, but consciously designed them to be argumentative, contrary, and staggered to prevent ANY consolidation of power.
The idea was to keep the Federal government constrained to "enumerated powers" and to leave ALL other powers to the States or to the People.
The end product of Heinlein's model leaves us with an all powerful Federal government and a coerced citizenry to do it's bidding. His argument suggests that "service" is "voluntary": If you want to vote, or if you want to be a citizen, then you WILL serve. Otherwise, you will live at the whim of those who do, with no voice in the matter, and with fewer rights than those who did serve.
Clearly, I have nothing against VOLUNTARY service. I voluntarily served 22 years as a US Army Paratrooper, and led a Long Range Surveillance Team on a tour in Iraq, and I work as a Lieutenant in a busy Fire department in my hometown.
My point here is not that people should not serve. Instead, I would suggest that people should be free to do what they want to do.
For instance, I can make the argument that joining the Army at 19 years of age retarded my progression in the workforce, others who went to college, were making far more than I when I ETS'ed from Active Duty. Though I can also make the argument that my Military experience has benefited me in the workplace, and I would not trade that experience for anything.
BUT, let me ask you, if people like Bill Gates, or Steve Jobs were incentiveized to give 2 years of service, military or other, is it possible that they may have not have created Microsoft or Apple as they served in the military, or as a Bureaucrat sitting behind a desk adhering to Federal regulations? I would suggest that such service would greatly inhibit people in their creative prime.
Where would we be without Jobs and Gates Today... Certainly not where we are.
Lastly, I would like to add that I have read "ATLAS SHRUGGED" by Ayn Rand a half dozen times or so, but I've only read Heinlein's works once. I would highly recommend any of Rand's works for a different perspective on "Human Action"... which, by the way is the name of a GREAT book on economics written by Ludwig VonMises.
(0)
(0)
LTC Jason Mackay
Gerhard, I disagree. Heinlein (peace be upon him) was a staunch advocate for minimal command structure and overhead. I will concede that you would have a sizable Federal Infrastructure to oversee the legions of workers doing their Federal pennance for Citizenship. I fail to see anywhere that it would not be anything but voluntary...Heinlein was clear on that. If you look closely at Troopers, he explains the thousands of people that are merely 'legal residents' with no sufferage by choice, to include the main characters wealthy parents. Heinlein spells it out as a constitutional right to have the OPPORTUNITY to serve. In the non-fiction realm, He is quoted in one of the few interviews he did on the subject of conscirption that (I may misquote, it was some time ago i did the research) "if no one wants to volunteer to defend the system then we should let the damn thing fall". I certainly do not want a 'Cap Trooper' on my left or right who is untrained or did not ask to be there. I will certainly take a look at the two books you recommend. I read Starship Trooper about once every 6 months.
I see what you are saying about that 2 year opportunity cost but it is up to individuals to choose. Choice is ultimately your concern. Value of the object, plain and simple. I believe it was a similar H&MP lecture ala LTC Dubois.
(2)
(0)
SSG Gerhard S.
LTC Jason Mackay, you are correct, he was largely a Libertarian thinker, though such ideas as he put forth in Starship Troopers, such as Service being a requirement to Citizenship or to voting are anything BUT Libertarian, but rather, are closer to Fascism. I should have qualified my statement by suggesting "In this case" Heinlein is a big government guy. Clearly, the balance of his statements do not support my initial assertion. Thanks for the correction Sir!
(1)
(0)
0
0
0
Both Korea and Israel have some requirements for one service or another. With Korea, its either joining the Police Force or become a KUTUSA/Soldier. Two years minimum to be a requirement would put a lot of “average citizens” in a different frame of mind and give them a better perspective of the nation and our politics. I do recall the MP Corp had implemented a recruiting strategy/program where you joined, you were able to do 2 years. The catch (My understanding, and please correct me if I am wrong recruiters) is you were sent to Korea or Germany for those two years. I did have a Soldier who did come in under that program and is now a Staff Sergeant. BUT, If a person does NOT want to serve, don't force them to. I have seen this go both ways.
(0)
(0)
SSG Gerhard S.
SSG, Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, and the Soviet Union All had compulsory service as well. It is not a model to emulate, as it breeds tyranny.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
No Way! Military service isn't a sentence, it's an honor - besides, the majority of cowards who live in this country grow spontaneous "moral stances" rather than grab a rifle and serve when their country is at war, so how can we... why SHOULD we expect immigrants to?
How about this -- Anyone who is born here and is pissing and crying about how "immigrants" took their jobs, and how they're "just getting by" on their 99 weeks of unemployment - take those people, create special BCT units at benning, and just let some 11B drill's scream at them in a perpetual basic training environment until they quit crying, and then once they're deemed ready to go back to the civilian world, kick them out and send them on their way...
(0)
(0)
SFC Nikhil Kumra
Besides - Do you realize how expensive that would be? You'd have 100 million people getting "one meat, one starch, one veg" with the fatties getting their snacky cake and pepsi at the defac 3x per day... Billions more in taxpayer dollars!
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google