Compulsory Military Service bill now in Congress
 

There is a bill currently in Congress that has the potential to affect many GCers directly and many others indirectly. It provides for a two-year period of compulsory military service for all men and women between the ages of 18 and 26. The only exemption possible is for extreme hardship or physical or mental disability. Those who are in high school when they turn 18 can postpone until they graduate, drop out, or turn 20. Conscientious objectors can participate in a national service program instead of performing military service.

There are identical bills in both the House and Senate.

Here's the summary: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquer...:@@@L&summ2=m& Or go to http://thomas.loc.gov and search for H.R.163 or S.89

(Apologies if this has already been posted elsewhere.)

That dog won't hunt.

Voting for such a bill would be political suicide. Alot of voters would be upset and almost all 18 to 26 year olds would not vote for a person that tries to force them to do military or some other national project.

granted it will never pass but I cannot wait until November so I can cast my vote to get him out of office...

I will admit that I don't have the time to read through this bill right now, but I am completely behind a bill for compulsory service to the USA, military or otherwise. I do believe, however, that a certain date should be set, two years from the date of the bill's passing, and THEN have it go into affect.

We will only be a stronger country with such a system in place - but we also will need the time to implement it properly.

I completely disagree. There is no evidence that we will be stronger. If anything, there is evidence that we will have a less capable, and less reliable military. When you throw the likelihood that a draft would tear this country apart, just like it did during Vietnam, I don't see how this is good for America.

It's easy for people older than 26 to say that since they won't be affected. Even by a mircle it passed and was implimented I probably would just be over the limit. Even so forcing people to do what they don't want to is against what america stands for. England uses to force colonist into serving in the British Navy. Thats one of many reasons along with taxation without representation the revolution started. The only way I would agree to serve is if the United States proper was under attack from a foriegn invader. Iraq is not my idea of defending the US. It's my right as an American to not serve in the military and I don't need congress taking that away from me. Not worried though hell would freeze over before a majority would risk pissing off a big block of voters. I do give them props for including women in the requirement at least.

That's not enough. They should mandate that all of-age children and grandchildren, of all members of Congress, and the President and Vice President, serve without exception. If the President has a grandchild in a wheelchair, draft him and let him serve as a file clerk. And none of that air national guard crap, or serving as an Army reporter. Move the children and grandchildren as close to the front line as possible. Is the kid a genius about to start medical school? Tough. You're fighting on the front line because your dad is in the Senate. Do that, and I'll support a draft.

My isn't the nation getting fascist since September 11?

Patriot Act, Homeland Security, Complusory military service .. ..

So, you don't think that having everyone in a given country able to perform some sort of service would make the country stronger? It's working fine in other countries, ie: Israel.

Reread what I said about a two year moratorium: the idea behind that is to get people used to the idea, so that it doesn't tear the country apart. Not everyone has to serve in the military; there are a lot of other services that could be done (including daycare for those working at something else). Many parks, microfilming old records, etc were done in the 1930's by this same sort of service. Quit thinking about yourself for a few minutes, and think about kids in a ghetto or people who can't afford college - this may be their only chance to learn (or begin to learn) a trade, and it surely beats gangbanging or imprisionment. I do, however, feel that everyone (except conscientious objectors) should know how to load, fire, and clean a weapon.

If you've ever read even one of my posts concerning this issue prior to this, you know I feel very strongly about it!

Would you do some kind of service even though your older than 26? Or just let the 26 and unders worry about it as long as its not you?

But that draft during Vietnam wasn't implemented fairly. All that college deferment (did I spell that right? I'm too tired to check) crap was divisive to the extreme.

Providing no special treatment to college students, children of politicians or run of the mill rich folks and allowing those who legitimately *can't* serve equivalent options is a great idea IMO

I admit that I am (ahem) a year or two beyond the cutoff age, but I have two daughters who would eventually be affected by such a bill. Nonetheless, I think it is a good idea. There are many benefits guaranteed to Americans so it doesn't really seem out of line to me to expect everyone to take a turn defending the country.

I have already served in a government capacity. I don't have a big problem with fulfilling the parameters, or seeing a governmental official's kid not get an exemption, or microfilming something.

Or I could teach you! :D

I would not mind a government related job I have actually applied to a few and scored very high on one of the test but still am on a wait list.

I think this still would not boost the militaries ranks because most people would opt for a job that won't likely put them at risk of death. The probably would be forced to do a lottery of some sort for the government jobs and everyone that didn't win a slot had to join the military.

That's a terrible comparison. Israel has been under seige for 56 years. They have no choice.Maybe you think that Americans are mindless sheep, but I don't believe that giving people two years to let it sink in will make people happy. Actually, I think that those two years would be filled with mass demonstrations and riots.And here comes a mass expansion of government, and even worse, the loopholes by which powerful people will get their relatives out of military service. Those exceptions will absolutely contribute to civil unrest, and undermine our democracyWho do you think you are implying that I'm being selfish? I'm not of draft age, and I am definitely thinking of others.I think that it will be a better America if our people are not forced to know these things.I don't care about anyone's feelings on an important issue. I'd rather the debate be dispassionate, which is how political discourse in America is supposed to be. There is nothing more un-American than political debate rooted in emotions.

There is very little room for strong feelings in rational decision making.

"When the best lack all conviction and the worst are filled with a passionate intensity"

I wanted to get another opinion so I asked Mr. KillarneyRose to read the thread and see what he thought. I usually consult him on most military matters since he has 4 years at the Naval Academy and 2 wars under his belt. But enough of what's under hubby's belt and on with the post :D

His opinion differs from mine in that he thinks the military should expand the role of Reservists and if troops are still spread too thin, only then institute a draft. He says it doesn't make sense to draft people if there are Reservists who aren't engaged.
He thinks that ideally, the military should be made up of motivated individuals who want to serve. And he's frankly puzzled as to why someone wouldn't choose to serve his or her country, but thinks the decision to serve should be made as the result of a gutcheck, not as the result of legislation.

Oh, and James, he loved your fat person quote! :)

Russ, I am only going to reply to your last comment.

How many dead-end people do you see each week?

How many people do you know who have been killed by improper use of a weapon?

How many people do you know who served in the CCC or other such services in the 1930's?

Because of my job, I have seen thousands of people with virtually no real hope of ever having a real job. Girls who had their first baby at 12, guys who have been searched by the police day after day simply because they are on the wrong street & are black. Women who feel that the sole purpose of our government is to incarcerate every black man under 40; men who will never be able to have more than manual labor because of a prison record.

I also see elderly clients whose lives were changed drastically because they did join the CCC or such in the 1930's. People who literally had the clothes on their backs, and are now aged & frankly, very well off. While I'm sure they exist, I've yet to meet a CCC "graduate" who isn't very well off to rich - and each credit the skills they learned in CCC with their drive.

Forget about the mass expansion of government; the labor unions will kill this idea long before it goes very far.

We have the population to make an all-volunteer force possible and viable.

In fact we cut the military back after the cold war.

Originally it was tasked to be able to fight a two front war as well as a side action . . although KR's hubby will know a lot more about than I do.

There is a lot of abuse potential in a National Compulsory Service as well as just the possibility of making the Federal Government even larger.

I would vote no on it . . i understand Honeychile's point of view and would have agreed when I was younger . . but I find that my patriotism now is both older and more cynical.

I am leery of anything that smells of Gosh Wow patriotism . . Rah Rah Rah . . . as well as arguments such as . . Everyone should want to serve their nation. . . its just to vague an emotive of a selling point for me.

I'd believe it if I heard the sound of jackboots on the streets and people in brown shirts singing: "Die Fahne hoch, die Reihe fest geschlossen! SA marschiert mit ruhig, festern Schritt..." (Raise high the flags, stand rank on rank together! Stormtroopers march with steady, quiet tread...) -- the opening lyrics of the Horst Wessel Lied (Horst Wessel's Song), the Nazi party anthem.

A devil's advocate question:

If everyone had to participate in two years of military service, do you think it would make the government more or less likely to send those children into war?

It's theoretically easy to send "dead-end" people like those honeychile described to war; I'm sure some of the politicians wouldn't blink twice in some cases. But when a large majority of their children, male and female, and their constituants' children, would be in the service for two years, you can bet that there would be a much larger hue and cry over military action.

Yes, the rich and powerful can still probably wrangle exemptions for "physical handicap" and the like. But not everyone in the middle class would be able to. They'd vote people's asses out of office in a heartbeat if it was abused.

Two years of military service could instill confidence in many of those who do not have it (and I'm talking shy people, not just the economically disadvantaged). People would be exposed to a wider range of jobs and skills. It's likely that more people would be interested in serving their country/government in some way after having two years of service. It would give many Americans a more common ground and common experience.

The drawbacks, of course, are that there are more people trained to go to war, or to serve in the reserves, who might be in the line of fire. Then again, if everyone was trained for the reserves, those who continued in military careers might number enough to fight on the front lines, the usual reservists going into active duty, without keeping the same people overseas for 18 months as it's headed with regard to Iraq and Afghanistan.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Switzerland also have compulsory military service for its (male?) citizens?

I'm patriotic as the next person. Really. I went to be enlisted but was disqualified for asthma, and I was actually disappointed. Serving my country would have been my choice, voluntary and un coerced. I don't think that *forcing* people to serve their country is really what our "free country" needs. Besides, how on earth are they gonna pay for this? Just enforcing the law would cost a hefty chunk of change. Much less implementing it.

Yep.. and they take their weapons home to...

As someone who has served (albeit in another nation) I have to agree with an earlier comment that a nations military should ideally be made-up of volunteers, people who are motivated to serve their country.

Besides is the act required... I thought enlistments and re-enlistments were up over the last 2 years?

Am I hoping that such a bill doesn't pass...yes, I'm quite comfortable with my life sans military service right now.

However, if for whatever reason it were to pass, I would serve faithfully in duty for my country.

The chances of these bills passing though are slim and none.

yeah... seriously.

this bill hits too close to home. i have cousins, distant relatives, and too many friends of that age and all in perfect health. i wouldn't want them to go off fighting like i am sure many of you don't want your loved ones to risk their lives.

i am not a fan of the war or of Bush or politics for that matter. my whole idea would be just to get off our high horse and leave Iraq... but that isn't gonna happen. And putting people in the military that don't really want to be there isn't gonna help us... it will just equal a greater body count. :rolleyes:

I agree with Mr. KR and others that a "professional military," backed up by Reserves and National Guard is the best way to go. That has been pretty well established since the draft ended.

However, I should point out that it wasn't the draft that tore "this country apart," but rather the Vietnam Conflict itself. The draft had been in place for many years and was considered a given. Granted that it allowed for gross inequities in who served and who didn't.

The fact that draft cards were burned was not really a demonstration against mandatory service as it was against the conflict.

Kind of like burning a bra was a symbol of...well, what was that symbol of?

Kidding and ducking out of the way of potential flames.

I will vote for it, it says any way of defense.... and I am under 26. I would do it...

I would be very cautious about relying on the Reserves and National Guard. They are less effective, and in the current theater of operations in Iraq, the mortality rate of reservists, compared to full time personal, a few months ago, was about 500% greater. This was an eye opener. It is safe to assume that draftees will also be less effective, and rife with problems.

Also, I'm sorry if I implied that the draft was the sole reason for civil unrest in the US in the 60s. I do, however, believe that the level, and length, of tolerance for that conflict will not be repeated in my lifetime if a draft is in place. Especially if the disparity between who serves, and who doesn't is repeated.

I'm interested in your thoughts here. A draftee would potentially be younger, have had his/her training more recently, and, if conscription were to be done correctly this time, the average draftee could be as intelligent (or even more if the service is actually "universal") than at present.

Because all the quoting would make people dizzy I will say I completely agree with Russ and that there should be no kind of compulsory service to the country, military or otherwise.

If we want to reinstate the CCC, then I'm all for it. But as far as I know people weren't forced to work for the CCC. There was also no welfare back then. If we're talking about getting people off welfare and into work mode, that has zilch to do with military service.

But getting back to the draft issue, I did see mentioned that if more troops were needed, some of the desk jobs that are presently done by military personnel would go back to civilians and those personnel would be reassigned.

There have been variations of that bill thrown around for decades now. Every few years something like it comes up and quickly disappears. It's not going to happen.

Anyone that has been in the military is against it, and all the liberal hippies out there are against it. The rest of America doesn't vote...

Basically, from my perspective of having been in the Army for three years now, I don't want a draft b/c I do not want unmotivated, un-skilled, un-qualified people around me in dangerous situations. A lot of people think that joining the military is a thing you do if you can't do anything better....well, those people that do that don't last in the military for long. I've seen plenty of men and women that just wanted the money but not the responsibility and they quickly fall out and quit.