|
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?
|