What do you think of mandatory 4 years of military service followed by 4 years of free education?

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 29 Apr 2015 15:10:07 -0400

What do my fellow soldiers think about this question? I think we should do away with the draft and an all volunteer military. I think it should be mandatory for all males ages 18 and up upon completion of high school. Forget the enlistment bonus, every male would have to serve a minimum of 4 years. For that 4 years they get a 4 years of college paid. Then when they re-enlist give them a bonus for re-enlisting. Our military numbers are down now. I believe this would fix our strength problems and get a lot of young men out of a troubled youth. But we need to go back to old school basic training. What is some of your thoughts and opinions on this.

Response by MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca made Apr 29 at 2015 3:11 PM

MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca — Wed, 29 Apr 2015 15:11:34 -0400

I believe some form of civil service, if not the military, should be mandatory. I would really like to say yes but we don't live in a time where that will ever pass muster. If we could bring back the Conservation Corps, or make the Peace Corps an option those would be great alternatives.

I once came up with a concept of a mandatory military service model. We would have X number of training divisions that you would go to after basic to serve your mandatory enlistment in CS or CSS roles. My thought was this would fulfill a lot of essential tasks that are being contracted out. At the end of your obligation you would have 3 choices - get out all together, stay in the training division or move on to an active division and learn a primary combat MOS, get a commission, etc

Response by TSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 29 at 2015 3:27 PM

TSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 29 Apr 2015 15:27:41 -0400

I think it would be a terrible idea for military service to be mandatory. I agree with SFC James S. We would get truly garbage troops if they had no choice. They wouldn't care about the mission, or have any buy in to the whole thing. I think it would make people hate the military even more.

Response by COL Jean (John) F. B. made Apr 29 at 2015 3:53 PM

COL Jean (John) F. B. — Wed, 29 Apr 2015 15:53:55 -0400

I am a firm believer in mandatory military service (or other public service) and believe that all able-bodied persons should be required to serve at least two years.

Yes, I said "persons", not males. Our country is now all about "equality", therefore females should not be excluded from service.

I saw some of the posts that commented on potential discipline issues that would result from mandatory service and agree it would be something that had to be dealt with, but that has always been an issue. My solution as a commander was "You are going to serve your X years of service. You just need to ask yourself if you want to serve it at Fort Benning/Bragg (or whatever was appropriate at the time) or Fort Leavenworth." I, for one, think the military would be very able to deal with the indiscipline in an effective manner.

There is a need for manpower in the Border Patrol, and in many other segments of government service, which could count for military service. I would require all able-bodied persons to serve a minimum of two years and be subject to immediate recall for two more years after that.

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Apr 29 at 2015 3:55 PM

Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS — Wed, 29 Apr 2015 15:55:52 -0400

1) Why just males?

2) Compelled Service isn't going to bring out the "best" in anyone.

3) Do we actually have strength issues?

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 29 at 2015 4:08 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 29 Apr 2015 16:08:49 -0400

The deeper issue is that so many Americans are straight-up unwilling to serve.

Back in my grandfather's day, they had guys who killed themselves because they COULDN'T go to war.

Imagine that now....

Nowadays, people openly talk about heading straight to Canada in the event that a major war broke out.

People love the comfy blanket of freedom they sleep under, but, sadly, only a small fraction of 1% are willing to step up to provide it.

Times have sure changed.

Response by SPC Carl K. made Apr 29 at 2015 4:27 PM

SPC Carl K. — Wed, 29 Apr 2015 16:27:27 -0400

I think if we had the military of old, where misbehaving privates got the crap bet out of them, then mandatory service is the right answer. However, in this day and age of a seemingly kinder, gentler, and more coddling military, this would never work as discipline would go through the floor.

Also, parents do not want to be parents to their kids now, as it is. The want to be their kids' best friends. This is the primary reason why kids are no longer disciplined at home, besides a lot of misinformation about discipline being abuse. This is why kids today are as horrible as thy are and feel entitled to everything. Their parents gave in too much. The parents would be more than willing to hand over their kids to the military to do the job they couldn't/didn't want to do. With the military now, I believe it would be a nightmare.

Response by PO1 Seth Crotser made Apr 29 at 2015 4:44 PM

PO1 Seth Crotser — Wed, 29 Apr 2015 16:44:10 -0400

You would never have it be mandatory because there are people with psychological issues or health issues that would prevent them from going. If that was the case then kids would be begging their parents to go to the doctor and get them to sign off on a note saying they have psych issues or something. As great as it would sound, I would much rather be serving next to someone who wants to be there rather than some punk who doesn't care and causes more harm than good.

Response by TSgt Joshua Copeland made Apr 29 at 2015 4:47 PM

TSgt Joshua Copeland — Wed, 29 Apr 2015 16:47:24 -0400

Outside of making it mandatory, how is this different than what we have now?

Do 3 years, get GI Bill that pays for 36 months of school (4 years of actual enrollment or compressed to 3 to include summer semesters).

Response by CPT Zachary Brooks made Apr 29 at 2015 4:49 PM

CPT Zachary Brooks — Wed, 29 Apr 2015 16:49:31 -0400

I would prefer to see citizenship being earned. If you are not a citizen then you cannot partake in government services but still pay the allotted taxes (sales taxes). Easiest way to become a citizen is to serve the country or your local community in some meaningful way.

This would also hopefully stop much of the vote bribing...

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 29 at 2015 5:39 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 29 Apr 2015 17:39:49 -0400

That is a horrible idea. If we had conscription and forced only the 18 y/o males to join the Army military would be about 2,245,452. If you would include females you would be doubling that. I don't think a 5 mil person army would be something we could really field effectively.

The military is NOT a social experiment. The Army is not here to fix socialites mistakes. I have seen losers come in and still leave a loser. They didn't get any better coming in. We are here to defend freedom. The last thing I want is to get a group of soldiers that don't want to be there. There is a reason why we became an all volunteer force. We need to keep it that why.

The numbers are down for a reason also. We don't need a huge force in peace time. We have never done that. We always reduce our forces to what we need to meet any threat. If war breaks out we ramp up training and field a bigger Army. We did that in WWII. We had over 90 divisions then. We couldn't maintain that.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 29 at 2015 5:44 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 29 Apr 2015 17:44:34 -0400

There's more than enough people who don't want to be in, but can't get out because of the ridiculous one sided out clause in our contracts now. I'm talking the Army can say for basically whatever reason that they want out of the contract, but you can't. Mandatory service just makes that issue, and every other one associated with it, worse.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 29 at 2015 6:08 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 29 Apr 2015 18:08:59 -0400

I think it works for a country like Israel that is small and alwys needs soldiers. In down times we would have too many. Even a conventional draft would be better then you can adjust it for varying needs.

Response by SGT James Elphick made Apr 29 at 2015 6:19 PM

SGT James Elphick — Wed, 29 Apr 2015 18:19:34 -0400

How do you propose to pay for all of that? Our military budget is already huge so more than doubling our force would increase personnel costs beyond our capacity. Also, education is now free for everyone, how do we pay the professors and staff at colleges with no tuition?

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 29 at 2015 6:25 PM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 29 Apr 2015 18:25:59 -0400

Instead of 4 years it should only be 2 years. Other countries like Germany and Isreal it is mandatory that when you graduate high school to serve a minimum of 2 years. Granted yes those countries are smaller, but that is why you would have a physical screening during high school. As far as the benefits I would say they would need to do a minimum of 4 years to receive the benefits we receive toady

Response by Lt Col Jim Coe made Apr 29 at 2015 7:16 PM

Lt Col Jim Coe — Wed, 29 Apr 2015 19:16:20 -0400

I lived through the Vietnam-era draft. Although I'm not a great student of policy behind the draft at that time, I did develop a perspective based on what I saw. If you were 18 or older and male and could not get a deferment, then you had a chance to serve your country for at least 2 years on active duty. Deferments were granted for college student status, marriage with children, health, sole surviving son, and probably many more I don't know about. The effect was those young men with the resources to go to college to avoid the draft did just that. Also, many chose to join the Navy, Air Force, or (to a lesser extent) Marines for 4 years to avoid 2 years in the Army. This was done with the mistaken belief that all draftees went directly into combat arms and to Vietnam. Of course, many went to other theaters of operation or stayed in CONUS. The effect on the Air Force was an influx of three types of enlisted airmen: high school and college grads who wanted to serve for 4 years anywhere but the Army, a DOD assigned quota of non-high school grads who required a lot of remedial training to acquire the necessary skills (read, write, math) to do the most menial jobs, and a small group of young men who intended to get themselves into the Air Force and promptly thrown out of the Air Force to forever avoid mandatory service. It was the last group that caused the most trouble. They tried to get a medical or psychological discharge if at all possible. Failing that they would intentionally generate some type of disciplinary problem, often use of illegal drugs or dereliction of duty, to get themselves processed out with a General discharge or a General discharge under less than honorable conditions. As a captain I investigated several of the latter group and helped them out of the Service.

I agree with those in this string who believe mandatory public service for men and women would be a good idea. Two years is probably better than four. The deferment factor will raise its ugly head again and some "rich kids" will find a way to avoid serving. Military service should be one way to do your public service time, but many other opportunities should be available. The influx of military members would probably allow the Services to stand down many contracts currently in place. When I started my military career, military cooks staffed the chow halls. Now they are run by contractors. Airmen mowed the grass and kept the base clean. Now that's done by contractors. Base Civil Engineers maintained the buildings and housing on base. Now that's done by contractors. There's no real shortage of work to be done in the Services. We would have to change our management approach to accommodate the different workforce.

On the positive side, many young men and women would profit personally from all the good things military service offers. Technical training, discipline, physical conditioning, health care, and a sense of having served their country. The extension of GI Bill type benefits after a certain period of public service is a very good idea. It would reduce the ever-growing level of college loan debt that is weighing down the younger generations. A minimum of one-for-one is appropriate in my opinion. Public service also may allow all those to serve to develop a feeling of having "skin in the game" making them more proactive citizens, informed voters, etc. All to the good.

Response by SSG Leonard Johnson made Apr 29 at 2015 7:40 PM

SSG Leonard Johnson — Wed, 29 Apr 2015 19:40:56 -0400

this idea has been floating around before, & I like it. However I think a six year contract should be fulfilled. That would save us more money. I have no problems though people using their TAwith limitations though while they wait to get out.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 29 at 2015 7:47 PM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 29 Apr 2015 19:47:37 -0400

One of the most prominent reasons our military is the best in the world is because every single person serving voluntarily raised their right hand. Once we lose that we lose our edge.

Response by TSgt David Holman made Apr 29 at 2015 7:59 PM

TSgt David Holman — Wed, 29 Apr 2015 19:59:09 -0400

I think it is a double edged sword. We already have a hard time motivating people who signed up freely. I think we would see more and more instances of people not living up to the standard. Secondly, it would probably start to bring up sexism questions if it was all males, and females weren't involved.

It isn't a horrible idea, but the all volunteer force is what separates us from the military of many nations, and what makes our men and women who serve that much more special.

Response by SSG Eric Trace made Apr 29 at 2015 8:02 PM

SSG Eric Trace — Wed, 29 Apr 2015 20:02:15 -0400

They should have never went away from old school basic. South Korea has it figured out, they serve however long their basic and AIT, plus to years active duty, eight years reserves, one month of training for each of those eight years, during the reserve time there college is paid for as long as they pass the entrance exam.

Response by CAPT Kevin B. made Apr 29 at 2015 8:02 PM

CAPT Kevin B. — Wed, 29 Apr 2015 20:02:41 -0400

Problematical. I had a Draft Number of "2" so I had to do something military. I remember about the whiners who were looking to do anything not to be drafted. There was a good percentage of them. There'd be a lot more but the culture was different then when you had millions of WW-2 and Korea Vet dads that a kid would have to face. It wasn't pretty sometimes but I believe parents made the draft work then.

Those parents are gone today, being replaced by most having no memory of anything military other than it looked bad on TV. So the notion of anything "mandatory" just won't get any viable traction unless the situation strikes too close to home.

I had the old GI Bill which paid for my masters at USC. I wouldn't have been able to afford it otherwise. Maybe we should flip the question. How about 4 years of college, trade through journeyman, technical, etc. for which 4 years of service would be required afterward. Our problem is benefits that encourage people to get out as much as get in. Something to think about. We already do a small version of it, the Military Academies.

Response by CW5 Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 29 at 2015 8:05 PM

CW5 Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 29 Apr 2015 20:05:32 -0400

I like the concept, 1SG Private RallyPoint Member, but I'm not sure we can afford four years of free college. Maybe two free years of community college for a four-year hitch. And why just males? Females need to be in this equation as well, IMHO.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 29 at 2015 8:07 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 29 Apr 2015 20:07:38 -0400

I think at least to have the right to vote, you should have to serve. Seeing as how we are sworn to the president's will, we should be the ones who decide who that is. I know I will be criticized for this but this is just how I feel.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 29 at 2015 8:19 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 29 Apr 2015 20:19:07 -0400

Terrible idea.

Response by MAJ Martin Verboom made Apr 29 at 2015 10:34 PM

MAJ Martin Verboom — Wed, 29 Apr 2015 22:34:54 -0400

In 1973 the United States ended mandatory military conscription known as “the Draft” and went to an all-voluntary-force. (http://www.selectiveservice.us/, n.d.). With current United States military involvement in combat operations in the Middle East there has been a debate, if the United States should remain an all voluntary force or reinstate mandatory military conscription. The current all voluntary force is the best trained, best equipped and best lead force in the world, reinstating the draft would reduce force quality, the way the military fights and there is a contingency system in place for extreme emergencies called Selective Service System.
Reinstating mandatory military conscription would reduce the quality of the members of current force. Since 1990 the Military has had over 90% of its members having High School Diplomas, and the other 10% having G.E.Ds, while the same age group of the general United States population has an 80% high school diplomas. (The All-Volunteer, 2007, p. 14). Current and future military complex than previous conflicts. The enemy may or may not be dress in uniforms, it may or may not be state supported. With the current speed of modern media, tactical actions can have static consequences. Actions from by Soldiers in Abu Ghraib (Saletan, 2004) and Marines urinating on dead Taliban terrorist (FERRAN, 2013) have strategic consequences. The lack of discipline, training and education that a conscripted force has demonstrated over the years would have even more of these types of actions which have strategic consequences.
Currently when personnel enlist in the armed forces, every one enlists for eight years. They may not serve on active duty for eight years, but they serve either on active duty, in the reserves, in the National Guard or on Inactive Ready Reserves for a combination of eight years. Mandatory conscription is only for two-year tours of duty (the obligation specified in the Military Selective Service Act (The All-Volunteer, 2007), with some skills requiring training over 12 months, deployment of conscripts would be for one year or less. This gives the Military less flexibility in keeping units deployed due to mission requirements. Units would also have difficulty conducting collective training as a unit before they deploy to combat area. Members with critical skills and experiences will be lost at a high rate with conscription than an all voluntary force.
In 1980, Congress re-instated the requirement that young men register with the Selective Service System. Currently, male U.S. citizens and many male aliens living in the U.S., if age 18 through 25, are required to register with the Selective Service System, which describes its mission as "...to serve the emergency manpower needs of the Military by conscripting untrained manpower, or personnel with professional health care skills, if directed by Congress and the President in a national crisis." (http://www.selectiveservice.us/, n.d.) In 1981 several men filed suite stating that the Selective Service System violated the 5th Amendment to the Constitution, because of due process, because women were excluded. The Supreme Court eventually upheld the Act, stating that Congress's," that "since women are excluded from combat service by statute or military policy, men and women are simply not similarly situated for purposes of a draft or registration for a draft, and Congress' decision to authorize the registration of only men therefore does not violate the Due Process Clause," (http://www.selectiveservice.us/, n.d.) officially recognized that the requirement that only men register with the SSS is unequal, but that the military had the right to enforce this inequality. Now as the military is directed to integrate women into combat roles, the Selective Services Systems should be made to include women in its registration. The Selective Service is the contingency plan if the all voluntary service cannot meet the national defense requirements.
The military should continue with the current all-volunteer force. Reinstating military conscription would impact the military operations, skill sets, discipline and quality. There are contingency plans in place with the Selective Service System if there is a National Emergency and the all voluntary force is not sufficient. “President Ronald Reagan …stated that a draft is at odds with fundamental democratic or moral principles…and equated it with involuntary servitude.” (The All-Volunteer, 2007, p. VII)

References
FERRAN, L. (2013, July 17). Marine Who Urinated on Taliban Dead Says He'd Do It Again. Retrieved February 22, 2015, from abcnews.go.com: http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/marine-urinated-taliban-dead-hed/story?id=19687916
Garamone, J. (n.d.). Recruit Quality Remains High. Retrieved February 22, 2015, from usmilitary.about.com/: http://usmilitary.about.com/od/joiningthemilitary/a/recruitquality.htm
http://www.selectiveservice.us/. (n.d.). Retrieved February 22, 2015, from http://www.selectiveservice.us/: http://www.selectiveservice.us/
Saletan, W. (2004, May 12). Situationist Ethics. Retrieved February 22, 2015, from http://www.slate.com: http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2004/05/situationist_ethics.html
The All-Volunteer. (2007, July). Retrieved February 22, 2015, from http://www.cbo.gov: http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/83xx/doc8313/07-19-militaryvol.pdf

Conscription in the United States

Gives an overview on the Draft in the US as well as the Selective Service System.

Response by MSG Morgan Fiszel, CPCM, CFCM made Apr 30 at 2015 7:47 AM

MSG Morgan Fiszel, CPCM, CFCM — Thu, 30 Apr 2015 07:47:09 -0400

Here's the problem with that: we want people who want to be there. Also, numbers aren't down. Numbers are up and they are looking to reduce size. This is why they are implementing tattoo policies and various other things.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 30 at 2015 7:55 AM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 30 Apr 2015 07:55:00 -0400

Some really good points have been brought up within this discussion. I agree that all in all it may not be the best answer but from reading the posts on here, I am sure with the thought process of many we could find the solution. Thanks for all your thoughts and comments.

Response by SSG Gerhard S. made Apr 30 at 2015 8:29 AM

SSG Gerhard S. — Thu, 30 Apr 2015 08:29:50 -0400

On the surface these schemes all seem reasonable, particularly when posed with a reward in the form of 4 years free education. Unfortunately there's ONE word in that statement that changes everything. That word is "mandatory". Mandatory means one does not have a choice. We have a name for the idea of being forced to work for the benefit of others against one's own will. That word is "slavery".
"Slave - a person who is forced to work for another against his will"

I am against all forms of slavery, including the government kind. Our voluntary service system is working just fine. If our government wants to encourage our populous to join the service, or another governmental service organization, it should do so with incentives, of pay or benefits that lead one to a rational choice to serve.

Militarily speaking, I would argue that if the cause is just, we have never had a shortage of volunteers, conversely, if the government can't make the case to enough volunteers for a given action, it may very well be that we shouldn't be engaging in that particular action.

My opinion, respectfully submitted.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 30 at 2015 11:11 AM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 30 Apr 2015 11:11:54 -0400

First issue that comes to mind is who would pay for the entire male population of the U.S. to go to school for 4 years? With cuts to military spending rising every year I doubt they can foot the bill. This would boil down to more taxes for everyone and I'm sure no one wants that.

The fact that we have an all volunteer service is what makes us the greatest fighting force on earth. Every one of our members chooses to be here, sure we are not all perfect and we of course have our discipline issues, but by forcing every male member of our population to join, not only do we destroy the integrity of what our military is, we then sit on the fence of becoming a militarized nation.

Our country was founded on freedom and it is our job as members of the military to protect that freedom, freedom to choose you're religion, you're leader, and in this case freedom to be a civilian.

I think mandatory service would be against everything our constitution stands for. IMHO.

Response by PO1 Andrew White made Apr 30 at 2015 12:47 PM

PO1 Andrew White — Thu, 30 Apr 2015 12:47:57 -0400

I'm all for it...not just Males though, Females also.

Everyone wants "Equality", let's get them ladies out there signing up for Selective Service at 18 too.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 30 at 2015 2:37 PM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 30 Apr 2015 14:37:37 -0400

Mandatory military service goes against everything we stand for as a nation. A volunteer military ensures a much higher chance of harvesting more disciplined troops too.

Response by SGT Suraj Dave made May 1 at 2015 5:10 AM

SGT Suraj Dave — Fri, 01 May 2015 05:10:23 -0400

Couple things about that.

1) American College is expensive and long. a 4 year BS degree is an American phenomenon, in most other places its 2. We force students to take unnecessary "Gen Eds" for a "Well Rounded Education", but it doubles the amount of how much the degree costs. The cost of tuition is half of the time why its attainable. We would have to change this money hungry education system first, or we would financially just be shooting ourselves in the foot.

2) Aside from 1, the fact that 75% of American Youth is ineligible to serve anyways (Health/Physical/Criminal reasons)

Response by PO1 Shahida Marmol made Jun 25 at 2015 2:33 PM

PO1 Shahida Marmol — Thu, 25 Jun 2015 14:33:17 -0400

Old school basic training, I definitely agree with. Making mandatory, no, some people will do things just to get kicked out because they don't want to be here.

Response by SSG John Erny made Jun 25 at 2015 2:47 PM

SSG John Erny — Thu, 25 Jun 2015 14:47:09 -0400

Troops need to take advantage of the On Post education center! CLEP out of those fluff and sunshine courses that keep the Liberal Arts teachers employed. Example, get the humanities text book read the thing and go take the test. Boom 3 credit hours in a week or 10 days instead of a whole semester. Find another low hanging fruit and repeat. Then start taking the English 101 and 102 classes. Get as much of the general requirements done as possible.

Response by SFC Mark Bailey made Aug 17 at 2015 10:19 AM

SFC Mark Bailey — Mon, 17 Aug 2015 10:19:42 -0400

HOOAH... it would be only fitting for someone to give of themselves and receive something that others have not "paid for" with blood sweat and tears...

Response by CPT Tom Monahan made May 22 at 2017 7:08 AM

CPT Tom Monahan — Mon, 22 May 2017 07:08:36 -0400

Stupid! We have amended the Constitution to prohibit slavery and indentured servitude. We need and want willing warriors. If we feel there is a lack of civic mindedness in the US we must look to improving schools (K-PhD). If we want to create more opportunities for in kind deferred compensation (tuition) consider bringing back and or the CCC, City (4) Year(s), Peace Corps, etc.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made May 22 at 2017 8:23 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 22 May 2017 08:23:23 -0400

I think that is great just don't make it mandatory. also with women in combat arms you can just make me do military service and not women.

Response by SPC Byng Ramone made Jun 10 at 2017 2:06 PM

SPC Byng Ramone — Sat, 10 Jun 2017 14:06:45 -0400

yea. Alot of countries do this and it works for them. The problem is with Doctrine. Yea, you will have, after 50 years or so, a pool of half trained/semi-trained people numbering in the high tens of millions. But wars are won, by the US anyways, with MLRS, A10s, 155s, Abrams, Apaches, and other heavy CAS. Not so much by warm bodies/cannon fodder....The Chinese, Russians, Israelis, etc., might do well with such a system but I believe the Army should focus on wargaming the next war. Which, no doubt, will be another counter insurgency somewhere. And counter insurgencies are not won by 19 year old privates. They are won by E6s, E7s, O1s-O3s...

Response by Cpl Lawrence R. Weston made Jul 27 at 2017 11:46 PM

Cpl Lawrence R. Weston — Thu, 27 Jul 2017 23:46:14 -0400

I did a lil more than two and with disability And still working I get by. I think two is enough and during Viet Nam years when I was in it was allowed. National Guard was pretty boggy in those days but after 9/11 they stepped up and pulled more than their fair share I salute my brothers in Nat Grd they are fine Soldiers and Marines. I have to plead ignorance as to weather Navy has a Nat Grd component. I just don't know. I know Air Force does and not sure about Coasties either. They do great work in rescue and drug interdiction. Plus got a couple of distant cousins that retired well out of Coast Guard. But am unaware of reserve component of Navy or Coast Guard.

Response by CN Rickie DeFehr made Jul 30 at 2017 6:09 PM

CN Rickie DeFehr — Sun, 30 Jul 2017 18:09:22 -0400

After serving. Not enough $$ to set in a class room.

Response by SP5 Norman McGill made Jul 30 at 2017 6:51 PM

SP5 Norman McGill — Sun, 30 Jul 2017 18:51:20 -0400

Four years is fine for someone who can qualify for four years of college out in front. otherwise it's waste of time and money. However it would be great if all young men could do six months in the military including boot camp just to give them some discipline and perspective on life in general.

Response by MSG Olanda James made Jul 30 at 2017 7:18 PM

MSG Olanda James — Sun, 30 Jul 2017 19:18:58 -0400

If I remember correctly, this is what I learned about Germany when I was stationed there right out of AIT in 1989. They have/had some sort of mandatory requirement for social service after high school where they either that to enter military service OR work within the social services field. The time requirement was for 2 years. From there, they were cleared to proceed with life as they saw fit.

Numbers wise, it would be a stretch for the military, although hundreds of thousands wouldn't qualify due to medical issues, etc. I think that it would be a great idea because a sense of service needs to be instilled into this generation.

Response by MCPO Mark Burns made Jul 31 at 2017 12:33 PM

MCPO Mark Burns — Mon, 31 Jul 2017 12:33:44 -0400

12 years of service for 4 years of training.

Response by SSG Edward Tilton made Oct 26 at 2017 12:05 PM

SSG Edward Tilton — Thu, 26 Oct 2017 12:05:58 -0400

I go the other way, I think anyone who takes and passes the testing and physical and wants to join should be enlisted for 3years Active Duty. I'm not sure about now but when I was a recruiter only 13% of those eligible used it. Of course there were plenty of good Union jobs then. Everyone thinks they will use it but in the interim they marry and have children.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 26 at 2017 12:43 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 26 Oct 2017 12:43:31 -0400

No. Just no. Why do people want to make everyone serve in the military? It's not for everyone. It does not fix people and it shouldn't be used as a way to fix people. Why do we want troubled people in the military? Why only men? I see this is old but still.

Just no to mandatory military service ever.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 26 at 2017 2:02 PM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 26 Oct 2017 14:02:20 -0400

I think that is great.

Response by SSG Roger Ayscue made Jun 13 at 2021 11:01 PM

SSG Roger Ayscue — Sun, 13 Jun 2021 23:01:50 -0400

Without Question and Without Exception EVERYONE should serve some form of public service. Rich, Poor, male, female, EVERYONE.
Everyone needs to learn that there is something more important in this world than they are. Some type of public service, minimum of FOUR years with a year of college at an in-state school for every year completed honorably, and a prohibition of college for NOT completing it. Yes, I said it...If you don't do your service you don't go to college.
Military service to being teacher's aids to working in a nursing home. EVERYONE should serve somehow.