|
On the one hand, it's a lot easier to lead volunteers than to motivate and lead draftees. On the other, it occurs to me that the price of citizenship is to put something back into the country. A national service program sounds good, but needs and requirements must come first. All national service personnel can't be in the Peace Corps. So, within the limits of availability and balanced against the needs of whatever service is required I would go along with a national service program with the clear understanding that while your preferences should be honored if possible the ultimate decision of what you are assigned to do must be based on the needs of the nation, not the preferences of the one doing national service. A self centered agenda must be subordinate to the bigger picture if the situation demands this.
In an ideal world we would all have our first choice of assignment and those who elect the military option would not be required to serve in a combat role but would be the garrison troops holding the fort back home while the Regular (volunteer) forces did the hard jobs. A national service person could volunteer for combat duty but would not be required to do so unless we were engaged in a war of national survival like WWII. Wishful thinking and plenty of areas for discussion and disagreement but its a start point. When I did my deployment I had all volunteers to work with. When my Dad was in Viet Nam he had a mix of draftees and Regulars so his leadership tasks were a bit more challenging than mine. At least we both got all our guys back home alive and mostly intact.
My personal belief is that we all owe our country a debt of service that every citizen must address. There are surely many ways to accomplish this, my way was to serve in the Army and to actively pursue 'pro bono' work now.
|