Volunteer
Volunteer
Posted on Apr 29, 2015
What do you think of mandatory 4 years of military service followed by 4 years of free education?
18.5K
90
79
13
13
0
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.
Mandatory
College
Volunteer
Service
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 46
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.
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.
(9)
(0)
CPL Darryn Polwart
Bad idea. Just think of all the undisciplined morons running around who don't even care about military values. Between 05-09, we had an influx of idiots come into the military who proved to be extremely unreliable in combat. I'd trade 50 of those guys for just one disciplined soldier who would cover my six.
(1)
(0)
SSgt (Join to see)
I concur. Part of what makes our Armed Forces so great is the fact that we are an all volunteer force.
(0)
(0)
7
7
0
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...
This would also hopefully stop much of the vote bribing...
(7)
(0)
SSG Gerhard S.
Don't people serve the country and their community by being productive members OF it? All respect to Mr. Heinlein, with whom I often agree, I respectfully submit that such a scheme, places too much emphasis on, and inflates the importance of government in our lives (which should be small), Constitutionally speaking. Additionally, disenfranchising based on "choosing" to serve creates two classes of citizenry, which only furthers to divide. Of course those who serve will see themselves as somehow superior to those who choose not to. One can imagine that ever divisive policies will flourish as the "voting citizenry" passes additional benefits to themselves, at the expense of those who are not permitted to vote. Additionally, though, in my opinion, there are great benefits that come with service (military in particular), it is not the best path for everybody.
Lastly, consider if the paths of people like Bill Gates, or Steve Jobs had been subverted into government service for the period of their fledgling, and growing periods of ingenuity. Would we have the explosion of computers and communications technology we now enjoy?
I believe our Founders had the right idea in many respects. Most States restricted voting to property owners/taxpayers, because they had the "skin" of which so many speak, in the game. Also noteworthy, is the fact that our economy, which supports our government, and it's military is dependent on the industriousness, ingenuity, and productivity that comes from free, unrestrained, and uncoerced ideas in the private sector.
In conclusion, our country was founded on the principles of small, and limited (Federal) government, and inculcating the idea that government service should come with all sorts of special privileges, only serves to perpetuate the idea that more government is good.
Again, my opinion.
Lastly, consider if the paths of people like Bill Gates, or Steve Jobs had been subverted into government service for the period of their fledgling, and growing periods of ingenuity. Would we have the explosion of computers and communications technology we now enjoy?
I believe our Founders had the right idea in many respects. Most States restricted voting to property owners/taxpayers, because they had the "skin" of which so many speak, in the game. Also noteworthy, is the fact that our economy, which supports our government, and it's military is dependent on the industriousness, ingenuity, and productivity that comes from free, unrestrained, and uncoerced ideas in the private sector.
In conclusion, our country was founded on the principles of small, and limited (Federal) government, and inculcating the idea that government service should come with all sorts of special privileges, only serves to perpetuate the idea that more government is good.
Again, my opinion.
(1)
(0)
5
5
0
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.
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.
(5)
(0)
SSG Merry Metzler
If not in the military, then maybe the Peace Corp. But I have felt for a long time that this would help a lot of HS grads get on their feet & figure out their life. And would it be more efficient & less costly for the military to go back to having their own support services instead of contracting that out? I was activated for Desert Shield/Storm & it was an issue for me that the food was contracted out.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google