Mandatory Military Service, Research Paper Example

The question of mandatory military service is one that divides people. On the one hand, some countries are always “on the ready” against attack, and, therefore, constantly populate its military ranks with fresh, new recruits from its constituency. On the other hand, people who feel forced into doing something usually wind up performing poorly, so armed forces staffed by such people could result in a less than efficient defense system. Those who favor this idea point to the fact that the military offers a wide array of training that is useful to society both during and after military duty. Those who do not favor mandatory service say that such service disrupts the normal flow of supply and demand from among our labor force and that a mandatory plan would be quite expensive to support. Either way, there are numerous pros and cons about mandatory military service. Some of these, on both sides of the issue, find examination.

Current congressional leaders have voiced opinions on this topic. Favoring mandatory service is Representative Charles Rangel of New York. Rangel has pointed out the protracted use of our military strength in Iraq and Afghanistan and how our country, in order to maintain full efforts abroad while keeping simultaneous watch over domestic defense strategies and any other global threat that might present itself, could benefit from having a mandatory service corps (Rangel 2004).

William Galston, former senior advisor to President Bill Clinton, sums up his feelings that reinstating the draft would be a good thing for United States policy because he sees a disconnect between citizen rights and duties and between sending troops to war and volunteering to fight in war (Galston 2006).

Weighing in on the side of mandatory service are observers like Mark Rosenman (2007) who reminds us that a military draft “has always been an option on the table” (38). Rosenman’s ideas go on to express that national military service could have a domestic, service component that is not tied to fighting foreign aggressors.

There is little debate that drafting military participants gets people more involved in matters pertaining to the government and more attuned to the shaping of public policies.  When we, as citizens simply pay taxes, we fail to realize our connection with our country. We are more than consumers; we should be participants with voices and actions aimed at making our land a better place. Those who emerge from national service would not be as passive about governmental affairs. The number of people who vote would likely rise, and elected officials would be held more accountable to the people who elect them because of their stints in the military.

Politicians would no doubt be the ones influencing what military and community service options would be most pressing for addressing by a national corps, so citizens would feel more of a stake in what the government does or does not do to improve the quality of programs and services that exist on behalf of the American people. Americans need to feel that we own America. National service would be a real life lesson in civics.     National service could prove to be a most democratic exercise, bringing people together, bridging barriers of color, creed, geography, and socioeconomic conditions to benefit the country as a whole and the participants specifically. Such service, lasting from one to two years, could earn citizen credits that could go toward education or salary benefits. If public schools made such service a part of their curriculums, then it would not be much of a shock to young adults who would be pressed into service. What might have happened if such a system had been in place when Hurricane Katrina hit the Gulf Coast? It could also be argued that those who serve, if they were to receive financial incentives for education after their service tour, might help lift the general education of the country as a whole.

Other Congressional leaders, like Ron Paul of Texas, have stepped in with strong words against the advisability of amassing required military recruits for America. Paul finds such a move to be a violation of a person’s liberty as guaranteed by the United States Constitution (Paul 2006). He views the draft as a kind of indentured service, or slavery even.

Lawrence Korb (2006), a Senoir Fellow at the Center for American Progress, takes a more pragmatic view. He reasons that, since our volunteer Army is well supplied with recruits who are there willingly, that there is no need for a discussion mandatory service. Further, he feels that the costs associated with implementing a draft would be far more than the current costs of funding the all volunteer staffs.

Steve Morse (2006), a board member of the Central Committee of Conscientious Objectors, agrees with Paul and adds his feelings that the draft is not a tool of equality. Morse notes the preponderance of minorities and poor who lost their lives in the Vietnam Conflict (when a draft was in place). He cites current, non-draft military enlistment, National Guard and active, as coming from economically poor Americans who need steady employment and supplemental income. For instance, current numbers reveal that, while 13% of Americans are Black males, 23% of the military is composed of Black males (Landay 1996).

Some people like the idea of citizen service to country, but they do not like the word mandatory. They like the idea of people working closely from across the wide swath of diversity to create, not only civic service, but also tolerance and understanding as well. Those more staunchly opposed say that it would take an enormous amount of money and supervision to undertake a project, on a national scale, that would call forth every able bodied/minded person from a certain young adult age to another, to serve their country. Maybe the government would not have to shoulder the totality of financial burden that this would cause. Perhaps, since non-profits would gain from such service, then they might work from some funding formula to qualify for services to be rendered in their direction.

Perhaps national military and national service should be qualified, for some might get lost in making a distinction between the two. Alternately, maybe they are one in the same. That could be a debate in and of itself as to the difference, if any, between serving the United States through the military as personnel trained expressly for purposes of national defense and serving in the military for purposes of improving American infrastructure and social concerns. For example, Teach for America is a sterling example of a service program that holds both national service as a core principle while maintaining labor market credibility (Anderson & Finnegan 2009). A properly supervised military service program would have the possibility of making young adults more desirable to employers when they enter the work force. Perhaps those who might enter such service promptly upon college graduation might bring enlightened skills to their careers once they eventually embark upon them (Policy Farm Team 2010).

Any way you look at it, the issue of military, recruiting, and the draft are sure to evoke strong sentiment. The only branch of the US Armed Forces to receive conscription support, to date, is the US Army. Congress abolished the last draft, conducted in 1969, in 1973.

No matter what the future holds for this topic, the matter has been discussed since the inception of this country. A military draft only works with a subsection of the population, whereas mandatory service is all inclusive.  Since the draft is such a divisive issue, perhaps it would be politically more attractive for political leaders, when pressed, to talk openly about the possibilities for level-headed debate about what a mandatory military plan might mean for the comprehensive good of all Americans.

Works Cited

Anderson, Josh & Finnegan, Paul (2009). “Human Capital Report: Fiscal Year 2009- Chicago. Teach for America. Retrieved 17 April 2010 from http://www.teachforamerica.org/about/regions/documents/HumanCapitalReport08-09FINAL.pdf

Galston, William. “Should the All Volunteer Force Be Replaced By Universal Mandatory Service?” Congressional Digest 85, 7 (2006): 208-220.

Gill, Kathy. “Military Conscription, Recruiting, and the Draft.” About.com: US Politics 27 Jun 2005. Retrieved 17 April 2010 from http://uspolitics.about.com/od/electionissues/a/draft.htm

Korb, Lawrence. “Should the All Volunteer Force Be Replaced By Universal Mandatory Service?” Congressional Digest 85, 7 (2006): 217-219.

Landay, Jonathan. “Fewer Blacks Desire Military Career.” Christian Science Monitor 88, 131 (2006).

Morse, Steve. “Should the All Volunteer Force Be Replaced By Universal Mandatory Service?” Congressional Digest 85, 7 (2006): 219-223.

Paul, Ron. Should the All Volunteer Force Be Replaced By Universal National Service Corps? Con. Congressional Digest 85, 7 (2006): 207-215.

Policy Farm Team.  “The Pros and Cons of National Service.” The Roosevelt Institution. (2007): Retrieved 17 April 2010 from http://rooseveltinstitution.wordpress.com/2007/10/02

Rangel, Charles. “Should Congress Approve Legislation Reinstating the Military Draft?” Pro. Congressional Digest 83, 5 (2004): 142-144.

Rosenman, Mark. “A Call for National Service.” Philanthropy 20, 1 (2007): 38.