And here they’ve been criticized over and over for not sending enough troops to fight their wars.
You’d need a lot of politicians with more commitment to an ideology than getting re-elected to get the draft back. I don’t see that happening.
[QUOTE=Johnny L.A.]
[li]Ensure that our forces are fully-staffed[/li][li]Instill a sense of discipline that seems to be sadly lacking in these days of ‘indigo children’[/li][/QUOTE]
I’d like to see objective evidence today’s children are any worse than children in the past.
Without such evidence, this particular rationale is pretty much nonsense.
The problem with this rationale is that the opportunity cost of being forced to be a soldier is you don’t have that time to have a real life job. Again, I’d like to see evidence that four years of the armed forces is better experience for “Real life” than four years of real life.
How does being forced to be a soldier teach self-reliance?
[QUOTE]
Provide opportunities to break out of one’s little corner of the world
[li]Allow people to develop a wider world-view[/li][/QUOTE]
Once again; objective evidence soldiers have wider worldviews than civilians?
I do not want conscripts–especially unwilling conscripts-- in my Air Force.
One of the greatest things about the US Military is that it is a professional military through its volunteer status. I’m sure the founding fathers would probably roll in their graves if they saw the current size of our standing army (which they were against), but the thought of legions of conscripts or draftees in that army would have them spinning six ways from sunday.
And as Wesley Clark already indicated, he pays his civic dues. And that’s all we ought to expect from him. No more, no less.
Tripler
“Draftees”, “conscripts”, call them what you will. It’s all the same thing.
Any president or politician who seriously supports the draft will shoot themselves in the foot. The days of blind, all encompassing patriotism are (largely) over in the US and people wont sit by as their kids are sent into military recruitment camps for years on end against their wills.
I would personally be against–just as it flagrantly goes against “all men are entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” thing.
I do have to wonder if such a thing would be beneficial towards getting people in the projects back to dealing with the rest of society and such. But again, I wouldn’t recommend anything more than advertising for the military higher in such areas.
Small nitpick. In the novel military service wasn’t the only way to get citzenship. Every mentally compitant adult (excluding felons) had a right to do “Federal service”. It wasn’t necessarily military in nature and nobody could be rejected. A job had to be found for them.
Not to mention Sweden hasn’t fought a war since the days of Napoleon! Huge constrast to the US! Also doesn’t Sweden grant CO status on request? I know they’re considering conscripting women as well as men. Crown Princess Victoria had to undergo Army training.
You are the one making the point, so I believe it is your job to CITE
There are two reasons why we will not have a draft:
[ul][li] Today’s volunteer military needs dedicated and experienced people. They don’t want a gaggle of draftees that are just serving their time waiting to get out.[*] The population is so large in relation to the number needed in the military that there would be no fair way to determine who would be exempted and who wouldn’t. The lottery idea was only used at the end of the Vietnam War and I doubt anyone thought it was fair.[/ul][/li]
There is one very big advantage that the OP didn’t mention for having a draft. You really need to have served in the military to appreciate it. I joined an officer training course so that I wouldn’t be drafted as a PFC. I served my time and got out. Because I was not looking for a career I looked at the military with a more critical eye and told everyone at home, what I thought of it. Today, those in our all volunteer military do not look at it with those same critical eyes and neither do they write home giving the same viewpoints. There is really not a good answer to this lack of intermixing and I’m not using it to promote a draft. However, everyone of us should be aware that there is a feeling among those in the military that we on the outside are different. Some of you seem to think those in the military are different. My point is that we need to keep some type of communication open between us and them.
Yeah but that also describes alot of military personnel now. Many were just signing up to pay for college and don’t want to be in Iraq.
I did not make up the term ‘indigo children’. In my observation, I see a lot of kids who seem to have little restraint compared to when I was their age. Now, you can say that my perspective is invalid because I would not have recognised poor behaviour when I was that age. Maybe, maybe not. But given ‘zero tolerance’, banning tag games as ‘injurious’ to the person who is ‘it’, team games where scores are not kept because we can’t have ‘losers’, and my own observations (admittedly, as a non-parent) of the way parents don’t discipline their children (see the Pit threads on the subject), I feel that kids are no longer being taught that ‘life isn’t fair’.
I’ve been around military people all of my life. Many people I know gained the knowledge they now use in ‘real life’ by receiving training in the military. As examples, I know someone who was an electronics technician in the Air Force who now has his own (very successful) company in which he has applied the training over the past 28 years; and my father’s experience in electronics, communications and radar led him to a successful career with the FAA. And many companies give preference to ex-military based on the training those people received while they were in the service.
It teaches skills that a soldier may need when his team mates are not around. For example, pilots go through Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape (SERE) training. If he or she has to punch out, there’s no one immediately available to help him or her out. He or she must rely on him/herself for a period of time.
It’s been my experience that people who do not go out in the world, or who are not exposed to people from different backgrounds who have different ideas from theirs, tend to have fairly insular views.
So I should have made it ‘National Service’. Sue me.
In any case, there are countries in the world (Sweden was mentioned) that have mandatory national service. I think we can presume that A) There is a benefit to the countries that do it; and B) There are benefits, numerated in the OP or not, to the people who serve (or at the very least, it is not detrimental to them).
Again, I’m not talking about a draft as people tend to think of a draft.
In my oberservation a lot of kids (17-19) have little restraint compared to what I had when I was their age. But that I was that age 0-2 years ago so my perception may be a bit skewed.
He asked for evidence, not “people I know.” When you’re making generalizations, as you have in your case for universal service, I don’t think anecdotes are sufficient.
I’m tempted to offer a rejoinder about college, where you can be exposed to people from different backgrounds without getting shot at. Hey, I’ve been exposed to tons of people from different backgrounds here on the SDMB. That strikes me as a much better way of meeting people.
Seriously, there ARE other ways to get out in the world and be exposed to people from other backgrounds. If you’re in the military, you might see LESS of the world, since I would imagine you’re going to train stateside unless you get shipped out somewhere.
Again, you’re still touting all this as an exercise in self-improvement, could you please provide some proof of the benefits? Not “I know people who” or “kids today…” Show me that people used to be more worldly or intelligent or something and have lost that without military service. And then, if you favor this plan, show me why it’s more important that people be worldly than have control over major decisions in their lives.
An opinion from someone living in a country where mandatory military service existed untilo very a couple years ago :
[QUOTE=Johnny L.A.]
. I believe mandatory service would:
[ul][li]Ensure that our forces are fully-staffed [/li][/quote]
If the american generals are like the french ones, they just don’t want these people. They’d rather have the money to buy better equipment or to pay professionnal soldiers.
Until the collapse of the Soviet Union, they needed cannon fodder in order to face a potential attack from the Warsaw Pact. Since the end of the cold war, they don’t see any use for them anymore. Since I don’t think the USA are in danger of facing a massive invasion any time soon, I doubt your army is any more willing to enlist hundreds of thousands of disgruntled and unwilling soldiers (at least, here, people had been accustomed for two centuries to mandatory military service, but I’m not sure the young american would react in the same way)
[quote]
[li]Instill a sense of discipline that seems to be sadly lacking in these days of ‘indigo children’ [/li][/quote]
that’s a matter of opinion, but I don’t think it’s a good idea to forceffully instill a sense of discipline. And once again, i’m not sure the US army would be willing to spend time and ressources just for the sake of instilling some arguable set of values that you happen t favor. They’re not schoolteachers.
[quote]
[li]Provide skills that exiting members can use ‘in real life’ [/li][/quote]
Like what, for instance? How to fire a rifle? Launch a grenade? Dig holes?
Well…some people did learn some useful skills. The most common was to get a driving license, and especially a truck driving license. Most other skills were not really useful in civilian life. Though there were exceptions, for the really skilled jobs, they used people who already had these skills. I remember that during the last period of the mandatory military service, the government decided that special efforts would be made so that drafted people woul learn something (if only how to read and write, since apparently a number of recruits were sorely lacking in this area). But I don’t remember it being very succesful, nor the army being enthralled at the prospect of being turned in a school. Once again, they aren’t choolteachers.
[quote]
[li]Teach young people both teamwork and self-reliancy [/li][/quote]
Same response as above. Is it the army job to instill values in the general population?
I would add that I’m unconvinced by the “self-reliancy” part. And more importantly, that not everybody is convinced that the values you would want to be instilled should be instilled, especially forcefully.
I would also mention that I knew a number of people for whom the military service din’t have the best results. Thay can come back self reliant or whatever as you expect, but they can also come back as bullies or decerebrated sheeps, learn how fun it is to get drunk as soon as you get a chance, etc…
[quote]
[li]Provide opportunities to break out of one’s little corner of the world[/li]
[li]Allow people to develop a wider world-view[/ul] [/li][/quote]
This argument might make some sense. Though I doubt that many of these recruits would see any part of the world (besides a 50 miles radius area around the fort where they would be living) , they would meet people of all social backgrounds, which might serve a purpose.
I think that the benefit you listed are mostly imaginary, and even if they weren’t, they aren’t necessarily attractive.
Besides, if you want to open the eyes of young people in some mandatory way, why choose a military service? Why not a mandatory service in say, hospitals, or national parks, or working in refugees camp in some forsaken by the gods country? I’m sure this also could teach them a lot of thing, broaden their worldview, etc…
Exactly. If I were to tell you about the people I know that have been in the service… Still careless, and hardly self sufficient. Worse then when they went in. For every great electronics wizard who got a job with the FAA due to there education in the military, are about 20 or so who couldn’t even make it in the kitchen.
That might be a generalization in and of itself, but not to far from home.
I won’t say anything about whether the US should have a mandatory military service, but since Sweden has been mentioned several times, and I did my national service a few years ago I’ll say a bit quickly about how it works there. Every male age 18 has to go and take some tests (an IQ-like test, a physical test, and an interview with a psychologist) and then they decide if they want you for anything. If you are against using a gun, you say this and you will not have to - in this case, you may get to do some other sort of non-combatant service (e.g. fire fighter). They do not grant CO status on request - these positions are generally given to those who do well on the IQ-like test and are suitable for these positions (I assume CO means commanding officer or something along those lines?). I had one of these positions. It would’ve sucked to be just a normal soldier doing military service. They just do completely trivial tasks and get nothing out of the military service as far as I can see.
Yes, Sweden has a very defensive posture with regard to their military. As for being adequately prepared for defense - not a chance. They have weakened their military goal considerably from being able to protect the country from attack for a week or so, to being able to aid other countries and the UN and relying on international assitance and diplomacy.
One last bit of information is that approximately 1/3 of 18yr old males have to do some sort of national service. So, if you don’t want to and express this feeling, chances are pretty good they won’t take you. This is opposed to previous generations where almost all eligible males had to do their service.
Conscientious objector.
Ok, well I’ve answered how that works as well. Sorry about the confusion.
The problem I have with any sort of mandatory service, military or civil, is that it presumes that we are servants of the government rather then they being ours. I love living in America, but I feel I owe the government nothing but my tax dollars and my informed vote.
Quite frankly, I have my doubts about the allegeded benefits listed in the OP, but even if they do exist, so? Since when is it the governments job to baby sit us and turn us into “good citizens?” If my two daughters grow up and turn into minimum wage layabouts, what concern is it of yours or the governments as long as they pay their taxes? (Please note, I’m not saying that isn’t MY concern. My hope is that they end up millionaire nobel prize winners 
)
Personally, I don’t see why the cost of mandatory service wouldn’t be better spent in our educational system, teaching children the skills to survive and succeed before they become adults. Not to mention the fact that the alleged benefits, forced upon the unwilling, will most likely dissappear the second the mandatory service is over. How many people do you think would continue a life of aid and charity if their initial exposure to it was under duress?
Just my two cents, DESK
Okay, look. I haven’t had coffee yet, and I’m grumpy.
I don’t feel that cites are necessary to back up the benefits I listed. Why not? Because these are impressions that I have from talking to and living with many people over many years. Those of you who have been in the military may not agree that they exist. You may have had differenct experiences. But I know people who have gained benefits from military training. I’ve also met many, many children who are in need of discipline. You may only have come across well-behaved angels. Can you at least agree that service does have benefits for some people? Sheesh!
Anyway, I’m not arguing for mandatory service!
This thread is not about whether there are benefits to serving.
Let me say that again: This thread is not about whether there are benefits to serving. It is based on the assumption that benefits exist; and assuming they do, whether those benefits outweigh the moral and other detriments.
I don’t want to be sucked into a side-issue. Maybe I should have posted in IMHO.
Damn, I need some coffee.