I think that may be a stereotype - and is in some way a recommendation for the draft, if you can believe that - simply because military service is not universal, it becomes increasingly isolated and insular and separated from the civilian populace. This is not a good thing.
I remember my conception of the military was largely based upon patriotic World War II movies and of course a healthy dollop of “antiwar” movies, television depictions, MAS*H, etc., and the like from the Vietnam era. “They brainwash you” is another common belief. I would posit precisely the opposite - it is civilians who often show a disturbing conformity and lack of critical thinking skills from what I’ve observed both inside and outside the military and universities.
The military, at least in basic training/boot camp phase - will take away your civilian clothes and accouterments - cut off your hair, demand uniformity in thought, action, dress, behavior, learn to march in unison, etc - but a curious thing happens as well - people can’t hide behind their former station in life, their money, or family background - what you see is what you get - believe it or not, some of the most colorful, original and dynamic people I have ever had the privilege of meeting (both in and out of the military) were in the military. Just because everyone is wearing the same outfit doesn’t mean they are a bunch of unthinking drones - I think this is popular culture stereotype that needs to be put away.
The military does not teach people to “follow orders without question” in the popular sense - orders can be discussed, but yes, they must be followed. Unlawful orders are a different matter. The military is certainly not a democracy, of course.
Point being, the popular culture conception of the military as comprised of unthinking automatons is way off the mark - individual thinking is highly regarded, albeit not in basic training/boot camp; military service has changed a lot in recent decades - most members are married, have families, own a car, etc. The complexity of modern technology has also required much more training and expense and the focus has been on retention of quality troops rather than a high turnover every couple years.
Right, which is why bringing back conscription is such a silly idea. The military isn’t a babysitting service. A bunch of 18 year olds clutching rifles isn’t what the military wants or needs, they want highly trained technicians and gung-ho experienced professionals.
Or is it only Marines that are gung-ho? Can army guys be gung-ho too?
None of which would apply to a draftee army, since they would be there unwillingly. To the extent they are independent minded, they will disobey or ignore or distort orders, or try to escape. One way or another, they would need to be beaten down into subservience and obedience; “unthinking automatons”, in your words.
I know people who were in the armed forces and people that weren’t. I certainly do not notice that people who served are better than people who didn’t. What evidence do you have - not anecdotal evidence, since everyone’s will be different, as mine was from yours - that military service is better for a person than a civilian job?
Sure it does, it always has historically anyway. It wasn’t uncommon for draftees to re-enlist and make the military a career, staying for 20 years or longer. Some “do their time”, and punch out at the earliest opportunity, of course. I was impressed, even with a volunteer military, of the incredible range of knowledge, education and life experiences in the .mil. - it’s not a static organization by any means. In fact, one theory is that the “antiwar” movement of the 60’s made the military more lethal, not less - due primarily to political concerns, ironically enough.
I have long thought that conscription, or rather a compulsory period of military service is a pretty good idea. I hasten to add that I thought that when I was definitely of draft age.
The army is pretty good at training people (giving them new skills) and an abrupt change of environment is not necessarily a bad thing - well I reckon that it is generally beneficial.
I’m not keen on using conscripts for gratuitous wars like the mess in Iraq, Vietnam or Suez, but there is no reason why one should not maintain a parallel professional army.
I’ve also long thought that we should have secondary periods of ‘conscription’, into the police in late 30s and teaching in late 40s.
Conscription can be applied by giving strong disincentives to avoid it, it could also be deferred or waived if one is in a certain profession. I don’t think that two years between school and Uni is much of a problem, I took one year off and noticed that the people who did so were at Uni because the wanted to be there, rather than those that just slipped into it.
I also reckon that the Israeli and Swiss (!) way of running things is not a bad idea, the odd two week break from mundane life and some physical activity probably benefits both mental and physical health.
I reckon that ensuring people are multi skilled, and that they experience different environments, is a pretty sound idea - the only organization that I can think of that is already set up and experienced at providing that is the army.
The only case that I know of that failed, was my father. He wanted to be an engineer, so the put him in the artillery. Something went wrong with his assessment, and he got put down as a thicko. Poor hygenic conditions aggravated his existing skin condition which made him look rather repulsive. When he was pulled up on a charge, his CO realized that the suppurating mess was actually an intelligent and cogent individual, they stuck in him hospital while they processed a medical discharge. The odd thing was that he became an unofficial medical orderly - and got really interested. In some ways it is a shame that his discharge papers came through - otherwise he would almost certainly have become a surgeon.
I assume no one posting here has ever heard of the Thirteenth Amendment? :dubious:
A draft to assure that we the people have adequate military strength to defend ourselves against all enemies foreign and domestic, is not considered involuntary servitude.
But what the OP and gonzomax are proposing is that American citizens of a given age be compelled involuntarily to perform government service because in the esteemed opinions of the writers it would be good for them.
Both of them are instructed to report, as soon as possible after reading this post, to Luna County, New Mexico, to help combat illegal aliens. They are not permitted to dissent from this by posting here; it’s a duty required of them as Americans. Sure, it may inconvenience them and their plans. But the good of the country overrides that. After 90 days, if the government’s needs permit, they can visit back home for 48 hours, and let us know how it’s been going. They may not bring along any family; the country cannot afford to support them in that desolate area.
If you see a problem with requiring that of them, you ought to see the inherent problem in their arguments. Otherwise, guys, talk to you in April! waves bye
I think you guys are overestimating the amount of potential draft dodgers, too. These are 18-year-olds we’re talking about, here. If all their friends are going to the military, they’ll want to go to the military. Just like how, in modern-day America, they all seem to want to go to college right after high school - as if a normal person, after freeing himself of 13 years of manditory school, would actuallt choose to go right on to four more years of that crap. Furthermore, if all the cool kids were volunteering for front-line combat service, then THEY’D volunteer for front-line combat service, too. Do you really think fear of death outweighs peer pressure? You obviously don’t know many teenagers.
A draft culture - a milititarized culture - is profoundly different from what you all are familiar with. It changes every level of society. Remember, I speak from experience.
I guarantee you that I’m not going to want to go into the military no matter how many of my friends do. If you think peer pressure is going to make people want to face death, you obviously don’t know very many teenagers, at least not in the US.
or, in **Sunrazor’s ** case, “I didn’t get drafted, but now it’s your turn!”
The suggestion of using universal service as a means of socializing always seems to come from older people who are upset about “kids these days.”
Sunrzor, I really do think you’re confusing the Army with your own voluntariness. You, and the others you knew, all went into the Army because you wanted to, for whatever reason, and whether explicity or implicitly, wanted to change your life - you chose the Army to do it. Eliminating the element of voluntariness changes that essential psychological component.
And as others have commented - the purposes of armed forces is to protect the national interest, provide defence, provide domestic assistance in case of disasters where civil order has broken done, and so on. Where in that job description does socializing all of the nation’s youth fit in?
Militaries are good at socializing young people, to prepare them to be good members of the military. It’s a means to the end. Why should you want to radically change the purpose of the military and make nursemaiding young people into one of the primary purposes of the military? Won’t that diminish the military’s ability to carry out its national defence function? You’d be complelling the military to invest resources in training, feeding, etc., all these young people, not because it serves any military purpose, but because of a social planning goal.
A universal draft would make it easier for presidents to get involved in wars. No more worrying about manpower shortages. Many more governments could be replaced, countries invaded, dictatorships converted into smoothly-functioning democracies. It’s worked so well so far; think of how great it would be to do more! Everyone would welcome us with open arms.
The world would be a better place if people like Nixon, Johnson, Reagan, Bush and Bush had more troops and could indulge in their wildest fantasies, the public be damned! What does the public know about running a country?
We don’t need more troops for defense, but for offense. After all, the best offense is an offense. Forward, hartch!
Don’t get me started on how beneficial it is to be made into a real man by a drill sergeant who has your best interests at heart and a government that has 2 years of your life to torture you with…
Alessan, you come from a country that has had to defend itself on a regular basis from external military attacks and terrorist internal attacks throughout its existence. Don’t you think that affects the willingness of its citizens to participate in the draft?
By contrast, here in Canada, the last time we were invaded by a foreign country was the War of 1812 - before we even were a country. We now live close to the most powerful country on Earth, with whom we share good relations, including a military alliance, which gives us considerable security.
In this setting, a universal military draft is hard to justify on military theory, or to get wide-spread popular support. If fact, of the two drafts Canadians have had in our history, the draft in the Great War came close to tearing the country apart.
More recently, we’re the country that draft-dodgers came to from the U.S., to avoid being drafted and being sent to an unpopular war in Vietnam - a factor that has also entered our national psyche to some extent.
I would expect that a significant proportion of the Canadian population would view a draft with considerable suspicion and hostility, given our experiences as a nation.
So, overall, I think it’s difficult to use examples from one country as a universal, to explain how people in another country will respond to the draft as a matter of political or social policy. The examples you give from your country’s experiences are interesting, but it’s not at all clear that they would be relevant to a policy debate on the draft in either the US or Canada, any more than the Canadian experience on a draft would be relevant to a debate on the draft in Israel or the United States.
So, I’m supposed to believe the ancedotal stories about people being enlightened and uplifted by being in the military, but not believe the ancedotal stories about them being terrorized and abused. Not to mention all the stories I’ve read women being sexually assaulted and raped by their own “comrades”; I bet they got a lot of good out of the military.
As for me, draft me for anything short of national survival, and I’d do my best to do as much harm as possible; I’d regard it as my duty to punish society for doing so, as well as feel enormous personal anger.
I’m not saying that America (or, God forbid, Canada) needs a draft. And I freely admit that the immediate nature of the threats facing my country is a major source of motivation when it comes to national service. But I remember my senior year of highschool, and back then nobody was talking about the need to defend our country, at least not with a straight face - it was all about comparing your physical profile rating, bragging about which unit summoned you for tests, and worrying that you might not qualify for something cool and end up pushing paper for three years while that cocky kid who liked needling you in Biology class was jumping out of airplanes, or worse, that your best friends would be comparing stories about Infantry Basic Training, while you’d just sit there with nothing to say.
It other words, we were motivated as hell, and it had nothing to do with patriotism.
How about a draft in which the likelihood of being drafted increased with the lack of political engagement, measured by one’s voting habits. Say, you’re 24 and never voted; you’d have a greater chance of getting drafted than a 24 y.o. that voted in every election that he was ever eligible to vote in. That’ll teach those apathetic little bastards to pay attention to something other than themselves, eh?