crossposted at www.freewriters.ca/blogger, a blog being put together with posters from all sides of the political spectrum. (kinda like tacitus but more centrist, we even have someone like bird dog =p) this is a bit controversial, but also an opportunity to define an issue before we're stuck with something that the republicans want to impose.
America needs a draft.
Today our military has 400,000 active duty soldiers, with 700,000 more national guard and reserve forces. The Marine corps has 140,000 more soldiers. Of those ground forces, 135,000 of them are currently in Iraq, and as evidenced by the continuing unrest in that nation, more are needed. This much was known as far back as before the war, when General Eric Shinseki stated that several hundred thousand soldiers would be needed to occupy Iraq successfully and provide the boots on the ground neccesary to ensure stability so that democracy could take root. The administration disagreed with him, and released the name of his successor before his term was up, turning him into a lame duck as punishment.
Shinseki's worries have proven correct, however, and the military in Iraq is stretched thinly enough that the second largest number of armed forces in the country belongs to private security contractors, by some estimates accounting for 15 to 20 thousand men, which makes their numbers twice as many as our closest nation state ally, the British, who have 9,000 men in Iraq. While there is nothing wrong with the security contractors work thus far, it is a sign that the American military, while the most advanced military in the world, is not the size it should be in order to handle the nation building exercise in which we have gotten ourselves involved in and must now complete.
Hence, the draft, and our opportunity to get it right this time. In Vietnam, the draft was an anethema to young men, of all social groups. The lottery system meant that some had to go, while others were able to escape service. College deferrments allowed those able to attend a higher education to escape the draft. And the system of service in the National Guard allowed some priviledged people to avoid service thanks to their parents connections. Nixon did the right thing, and ended the draft, bringing us to our volunteer army that we employ now. But now this system is no longer viable. In a world with only one superpower, a demilitarized Europe, and an acceptance of the US as global policeman, our volunteer army is not large enough to provide the level of security the current situation requires while ensuring other vital US interests abroad.
So lets institute a mandatory National Service. We would hardly be the first first world nation to do so. Sweden has one, as do several other European nations, and the rapidly advancing Asian nations such as Singapore do as well. All citizens, be they man or woman or transexual, regardless of race, religion, or sexual orientation, between the ages of 18-28, would be required to serve America for 2 years. No ifs, ands, or buts. Compulsory mandatory service for all in the service of their homeland, would change American perceptions of themselves, their country, and the world abroad. It would give them a reason to be proud of their country, and to feel more invested in the nation that they live in. Indeed, unless you are to argue about the inherent lack of freedom in compulsory service, there is little in the idea of National Service that could be bad.
But if we are to create this program, we must do it correctly. I personally am fond of a three pronged approach to National Service. Military service is certainly one way to do your duty for your country, but America needs more than just soldiers, and with a compulsory service this size, it would be unfeasible for each and every person to do their duty in the armed forces. Along with service in the military would be two groups formed out of the current Americorps and Peacecorps programs, where young men and women would sign up to work on improving their nation and doing their civic duty, or where they could spread American ideals abroad while providing humanitarian aid and assistance to other nations.
The former would range from simply beautifying Americas cities, to those who complete their National Service requirement for teaching two years in a needy school system, to assisting the disabled and others. Their benefit would be that they would get to see a new part of the country, and have a part in building the infrastructure and society that they live in, and become enfranchised within society, which might create a stronger civic bond of duty in their future lives. And in all three cases, service would be rewarded with credits to attend college, giving those who wish to attend a 4 year college a free ride upon completion of their service (or in the case of those becoming teachers or instructors, before their service).
Why would anyone join the military wing of the National Service, given the ability to get the same advantages as in the other, less dangerous branches, one might ask. I'd agree that it was an issue, but one that could be dealt with by adding additional incentives to serve in the armed forces. Likewise, I'd prefer to see the Army as a whole adopt the "every soldier is a rifleman" ideal of the Marine Corps, instead of being so limited in terms of combat troops. And there will always be those who would rather join the military than serving in the other wings.
Too many Americans have forgotten these days that it is not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country. And with that in that mind, if there is to be a draft, lets do it proper, for the betterment of America.
