Posted on Apr 29, 2015
What do you think of mandatory 4 years of military service followed by 4 years of free education?
20K
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 >1 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)
5
5
0
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.
(5)
(0)
4
4
0
1SG (Join to see)
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.
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.
(4)
(0)
COL Jean (John) F. B.
GySgt Joe Strong
I agree there were real issues, some of which I personally experienced. However, once the military lowered the boom and started doing the right thing, it was quickly alleviated and brought under control.
I can't argue against what you say. Certainly it would distract from training if they were simply thrown into units. The only way it would work would be to have a culling process, with those who were not getting with the system sent to additional training and not to units. Not a perfect situation, but would go a long way to helping alleviate some of the social issues in our country: joblessness, lawlessness, disrespect for authority, etc. My opinion is that, if the current situation is allowed to continue, our troops will be fighting our own population. We need to get ahead of the problem and not be in a reactionary role when it is too late to do anything about.
I have long stated that our country needs to pay as much attention to Los Angeles, Miami, Detroit, Chicago, etc., etc. as we do to places outside our country. Let's clean up Miami before we clean up Kandahar, for example. Yes, I am aware of the Posse Comitatus and all that, but we are headed to anarchy and the thugs are taking control of our cities. One way to approach this is to require national service by all able-bodied personnel. Not perfect by any stretch, but it is a start.
I agree there were real issues, some of which I personally experienced. However, once the military lowered the boom and started doing the right thing, it was quickly alleviated and brought under control.
I can't argue against what you say. Certainly it would distract from training if they were simply thrown into units. The only way it would work would be to have a culling process, with those who were not getting with the system sent to additional training and not to units. Not a perfect situation, but would go a long way to helping alleviate some of the social issues in our country: joblessness, lawlessness, disrespect for authority, etc. My opinion is that, if the current situation is allowed to continue, our troops will be fighting our own population. We need to get ahead of the problem and not be in a reactionary role when it is too late to do anything about.
I have long stated that our country needs to pay as much attention to Los Angeles, Miami, Detroit, Chicago, etc., etc. as we do to places outside our country. Let's clean up Miami before we clean up Kandahar, for example. Yes, I am aware of the Posse Comitatus and all that, but we are headed to anarchy and the thugs are taking control of our cities. One way to approach this is to require national service by all able-bodied personnel. Not perfect by any stretch, but it is a start.
(0)
(0)
GySgt Joe Strong
COL Jean (John) F. Burleson
I'm sorry Sir, but the only way I see the change you speak of happening, is along one of two paths - 1) A Buy in of values among those conscripted, which I would argue the conscription itself would work against. and 2) An overwhelming Socialist force forcing behavior change while the simmering feelings boiled away underneath - the USSR already tried that one and you simply drag the national economy and ethos down as you force the people to submit.
No, IMHO, the issue some are trying to fix with mandatory service presents many false choices as (IMHO) the real issue is a moving away from traditional mores and values. As those values are being eroded in the services (albeit more slowly) just as in Society as a whole. I don't see the mandatory Service as a Fix.
If we were to realize and could implement appropriate Social changes to arrive where question of Morality and ethics actually held sway, and weren't just given lip service as they were stepped on to move to a "progressive" future - then we might be moving in the right direction, and these mandatory service ideas might get some traction.
But in any case, I would prefer mandatory service not take place in the Military (of any Branch) unless dire necessity forced it. Always volunteers.
I would buy into Mandatory Service of a Social nature or even the fictional Starship Troopers version faster than Military Service.
I'm sorry Sir, but the only way I see the change you speak of happening, is along one of two paths - 1) A Buy in of values among those conscripted, which I would argue the conscription itself would work against. and 2) An overwhelming Socialist force forcing behavior change while the simmering feelings boiled away underneath - the USSR already tried that one and you simply drag the national economy and ethos down as you force the people to submit.
No, IMHO, the issue some are trying to fix with mandatory service presents many false choices as (IMHO) the real issue is a moving away from traditional mores and values. As those values are being eroded in the services (albeit more slowly) just as in Society as a whole. I don't see the mandatory Service as a Fix.
If we were to realize and could implement appropriate Social changes to arrive where question of Morality and ethics actually held sway, and weren't just given lip service as they were stepped on to move to a "progressive" future - then we might be moving in the right direction, and these mandatory service ideas might get some traction.
But in any case, I would prefer mandatory service not take place in the Military (of any Branch) unless dire necessity forced it. Always volunteers.
I would buy into Mandatory Service of a Social nature or even the fictional Starship Troopers version faster than Military Service.
(1)
(0)
COL Jean (John) F. B.
GySgt Joe Strong
I can't argue with your logic...
I just have a hard time sitting back and allowing this to get progressively worse without trying to do something about it. There is no easy solution, but I do know that doing nothing will only lead to disaster.
I can't argue with your logic...
I just have a hard time sitting back and allowing this to get progressively worse without trying to do something about it. There is no easy solution, but I do know that doing nothing will only lead to disaster.
(1)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
I agree with you sir 100%. All abled bodied persons should serve in some capacity. The way I see it, everyone will have someone or know someone close to them serving. Imagine the jobs that would bring by adding more barracks, uniforms, food service, hell even barber shops. The country's defense would always be at 100%. Most Americans would know what it means to serve and stay true to the saying that " Freedom isn't free".
(1)
(0)
3
3
0
I like the concept, 1SG (Join to see), 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.
(3)
(0)
MAJ Bryan Zeski
Chief, if we can afford almost two decades of two wars, I'm sure we can find the funding for some education.
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
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.
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.
(3)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
By the way, I've pondered this question quite a bit.
While I do think the 'burden' of sacrifice should be more evenly distributed via mandatory service, I couldn't imagine being a commander of a company full of 'Soldiers' that simply didn't want to be there.
It would be an absolute nightmare.
While I do think the 'burden' of sacrifice should be more evenly distributed via mandatory service, I couldn't imagine being a commander of a company full of 'Soldiers' that simply didn't want to be there.
It would be an absolute nightmare.
(2)
(0)
(1)
(0)
SGT Larry Johns
SPC Carl K. - In 1970 Canada would not return the defectors. Many went and I believe President Clinton pardoned them all. I think that might happen again with the more liberal government to our north.
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
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
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
(3)
(0)
PO2 (Join to see)
I completely agree that the CCC needs to come back. We have a ton of stuff that needs to be fixed and a ton of people that need work, why not have them meet?
(1)
(0)
SSG Gerhard S.
CCC would never work today, and it was an inefficient debacle of a program to begin with that had CCC members forcibly removing people from their homes in the Shenandoah region, and then burning their homes so they couldn't return.
"CCC members were sent to burn down the homes of mountaineers who refused to vacate their land — a chilling example of how FDR’s “freedom from fear” required giving federal agents unlimited power."
Also, could you imagine the outrage of people when they're told they will have to go out in the woods, live in tents, and plant trees all day to menial wages, when so many have become content to sit at home and collect a check?
The best solutions to our problems is rarely a government program, because funding such programs takes even MORE money out of the private sector that could be better, and more efficiently utilized to create REAL jobs.
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/02/james-bovard/redneck-ethnic-cleansing/
"CCC members were sent to burn down the homes of mountaineers who refused to vacate their land — a chilling example of how FDR’s “freedom from fear” required giving federal agents unlimited power."
Also, could you imagine the outrage of people when they're told they will have to go out in the woods, live in tents, and plant trees all day to menial wages, when so many have become content to sit at home and collect a check?
The best solutions to our problems is rarely a government program, because funding such programs takes even MORE money out of the private sector that could be better, and more efficiently utilized to create REAL jobs.
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/02/james-bovard/redneck-ethnic-cleansing/
Redneck Ethnic Cleansing – LewRockwell.com
Few things vanish from public memory more quickly than government atrocities. When I was growing up on a mountainside across from the Shenandoah National Park in the 1960s, no one spoke of the injustices committed against the mountaineers brutally expelled from their homes in the 1930s to create that park. Instead, all that mattered in Front Royal, Virginia, my nearby hometown and the northern entrance of the park, was that the tourists the...
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
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.
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.
(2)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
I hear what you are saying. It would almost be a form of enslavement. But the Constitution was written for those times and not today. They could not have seen at the time when women would be allowed to vote, Black men able to serve in the military, or transgender for that matter. South Korea has it in place so does Israel. I would not want everyone to serve in the military because some folks just aren't cut out for that, but they could serve in some other capacity. Point is, it's about time more Americans give back to country as we have.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
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.
(2)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google