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?
951K
9.34K
3.23K
3.2K
3.2K
0
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.
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 1935
Edited >1 y ago
Posted >1 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.
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)
Capt James F. (Jim) Bard, Jr.
6 mo
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.
(3)
Reply
(0)
SGT Gary Gray
6 mo
The Army was also a way out for non-violent offenders. might be something to considerCapt James F. (Jim) Bard, Jr. -
(2)
Reply
(0)
Sgt Kathy Lewis
5 mo
I have always said it would do people good to do a year or two in service to the country. It wouldn't have to be military not everyone is cut out for the military. However,learning about and working with others not like you or from other parts of the country is an invaluable experience.
(3)
Reply
(0)
Lt Col Warren Domke
1 d
I would put some weight on a person's willingness to serve. Someone who truly wants to serve in the Armed Forces will put in a greater effort than someone who is serving against their will, which was often the case during the Vietnam War. The one who wants to serve will push to pass physical tests, learn the skills and serve where duty sends them. I began my service as an Airman Basic in the New Mexico Air National Guard, served ten years active commissioned--including a tour in Vietnam--and finished in the Air Force Reserve after 32 total combined years. I considered serving to be an honor.
(0)
Reply
(0)
Posted >1 y ago
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.
(422)
Comment
(5)
(0)
Reply
(0)
LTC Charles Kosmerl
2 mo
I disagree somewhat in Korea. We re-established the status quo and South Korea went on to become an economic powerhouse. Politically it's been somewhat of a disappointment but you can't call it a loss or a draw.
(0)
Reply
(0)
LTC Trent Klug
2 mo
Capt James F. (Jim) Bard, Jr. It wasn't the boots on the ground who lost in Vietnam. The Viet Cong were finished as a fighting force after Tet. It was the political powers in DC and the very senior leadership of the Services
(0)
Reply
(0)
Capt James F. (Jim) Bard, Jr.
2 mo
It (political interference) was the same problem General Douglas MacArthur had in Korea and General Tommy Franks of US Central Command (CENTCOM) had in Afghanistan. The troops did the best they could under the circumstances.
(0)
Reply
(0)
Edited >1 y ago
Posted >1 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.
(315)
Comment
(0)
SGT Gary Gray
6 mo
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)
Reply
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
4 mo
I agree with the idea to keep service as volunteer unless we are at war. However, if there every came the idea of required service, in this day in age, many can fake it or get something written they have an issue. If this comes to fair, then we are left with a bunch of fake people claiming some illness or issue and the tax payer is stuck fitting the bill for a fake diagnosis and disability. Keep the service a volunteer service, then we know we have those who truly want to be in and to serve for their country. Some times the best service, is the quiet professional who gets things done without requiring reward, for service is the reward itself.
(1)
Reply
(0)
1LT Peter Suedfeld
4 mo
SFC (Join to see) - Returning to Starship Troopers: Given the wide range of public service jobs, somebody would have to be very severely disabled, mentally AND physically, to be disqualified from every one. And, as I pointed out earlier, not serving -- for whatever reason, including just not wanting to -- has very limited negative consequences. Basically the idea of volunteer service is fully compatible with Heinlein's. Regrettably, the movie is nowhere near the depth and complexity of the system described in the book – which is also an excellent sci-fi military adventure story.
(1)
Reply
(0)
Read This Next

United States
Military Career
Military Education
Society
