I predicted 1) there would be calls for a renewed draft; and 2) it would be called something different.
Mackenzie's a prominent conservative voice, making the kind of proposal I saw coming - and, indeed, calling it something else: compulsory service with a 'military component.'"
As long as neocons keep talking about the US effecting regime change in Middle East countries beyond Iraq, it's foolish NOT to talk about a draft, er "compulsory service with a military component" - because Iraq alone is more than the troops we've got there now can handle (as McCain admits today in calling for tens of thousands more to be sent to Iraq.)
Our military since the 70's has become purely professional. I believe it would be a mistake to dilute their greatness with those who would protest and carry on to no end about having to be there. It would automatically sink morale to below negative levels. The professionals who volunteered would resent having to carry the burden for all the pansies.
Sacrifice and love of country won't be instilled by compulsory service. Those attributes can only be taught by parents or accepted willingly in adulthood.
In short, the military is opposed to a draft and that should be reason enough.
There's the second sure way (the first is illegal alien amnesty) to lose in 2008.
The average American is not going to support a draft to "bring freedom" to the people of the Middle East. They can take care of themselves, as far as I am concerned. There needs to be some boundary on this neo-con outlook.
And it would hugely dilute our military, and its ability to defend OUR country. Do you want OUR troops to be dependent upon draftees? Public school graduates that are illiterate? What about liberal kids from Marin County and the Upper West Side that support Saddam over Bush? Would you want to put your life in their (incompetent, treasonous) hands? I sure wouldn't.
It's always interesting when people talk about shared sacrifice, it is some one else doing the sacrificing.
Talk a good look at the average 18-23 year old and think how interested they will be in this legislated sacrifice.
This 18-23 yr old must be about 20 million people. Are they going to work for free like the Americorp "volunteers".
What about the administration of another massive Federal program? Free?
Who is elegible to receive the "volunteers"? Social activist groups and Get-Out-the Vote scams?
I think us non-veteran Boomers should be the first to sacrifice, since it would be a novel experience for so many.
FDR would love it.
/sarcasm
allow 'older' Americans to enlist....
come on ! change the darn rules....
My daughters will never be enslaved by government for any reason.
My sons will never be enslaved unless with other young men they are specifically called for service in the national defense.
If "mandatory public service"--from young men in the absence of a violent threat to the US, or for any purpose if not directly related directly to national defense, OR from young women for ANY reason whatsoever--if "mandatory public service" ever should come to pass, then it will confirm that the United States, the entity through which we have all contracted with each other over the years, is gone.
If the US is gone, then whatever is left is not the United States, and therefore it can expect no loyalty from those living here. And nothing would be left to defend in that case anyway. "To love, honor and serve until death do us part" is a similar concept: if the US is gone then no contract remains.
We the People have unalienable rights and demand that no government disparage them; and we demand continued strict limitations on government power. Americans will not accept even one minute of slavery.
Anything that tries to make us slaves is as great an enemy as any foe our nation has ever faced, and it will be dealt with just like any other foreign invader of our land, with all force necessary to repel it.
So BEWARE, you centralized control freaks, you stupidly naive trusters of centralized power, you fascists, you Democrats, you RINOs, and all you other lovers of slavery: You are warned: do not even think about trying to implement a socialist national service requirement: It is forever non-negotiable.
NO DRAFT, and no involuntary servitude period. We have a military comprised of professional volunteers. Who is this MacKenzie character anyway?
I think the armed forces are better off with people who choose to serve. I think the military thinks this, too. Of course, perhaps we need millions of soldiers to pacify the Middle East and just haven't been told that.
I just want to ask this:
How many of you would want to be forced to give up hours of your life for anything like this "compulsory service" crap NOW?
How many of you would want to be forced into government servitude NOW?
I don't care how many people have been 'molded' in the services. It is wrong to force people to work for the government or sacrifice their time without compensation. WRONG. If it's wrong for us to pay exorbitant taxes so people can lay around on welfare, it's wrong for us to compel kids that ain't ours to work for whatever cause we feel is 'good,' no matter how good we think that cause is.
Even in the days of World War II, it took the US close on two years from the institution of the draft to train and equip enough of an expanded military force to start major offensive actions. They trimmed the "street to shoot" time down a lot towards the end of the war, but it was still not an instant process.
These days, it takes from three to six months to teach low-level military skills to recruits. However, this is all based upon planned training throughput of a certain level. Flooding a system via universal compulsory service is a recipe for disaster, as first the corps of trainers must be expanded.
Go to the private sector for trainers? Theoretically possible for some skills, but THE TRAINING WILL NOT BE STANDARDIZED. Severe problems have resulted from such non-standardization.
Train up those already in the service to be the trainers? That means accepting less qualified trainers, e.g. someone who somehow has made it to E-5 with under three years of service and is now expected to lead. Some do rise to the challenge, but not all can.
I also note that some skills require over two years of training to be acquired by military recruits. National Call to Service, or a one-year compulsory military service, will not provide added trainees for those pipelines.
Because this is a free country. Compulsory service forces people into service to the state. That's great if you're a totalitarian country, but not if you are a free state.
Compulsory "National Service" is right out of the 1930's Progressive playbook.
It is flatly incompatible with America's founding principles for the government to shanghai American citizens into such a program.
There might be an argument for a draft in times of dire national emergencies, but we are not in one now -- although we are at war. This idea that the government "need[s] to instill the virtue of service in the young people" is social engineering at its most arrogant.
One cannot possibly advocate such a program and claim to have any understanding at all of the proper relationship between the people and the government.
Mackenzie should be ashamed of himself.
Compulsory universal service is also known as involuntary servitude.
If it happened, I'm sure I could be polite the first few times a brainless, brainwashed 18 year public school product trespasses on my land and tells me I'm an evil property owner destroying the environment.
But after a couple of months explaining to witless, Marxist useful idiots what private property and free enterprise is, I'm sure I'd lose my patience and start locking them up via a call to the sheriff.
Involuntary servitude is a monumentally stupid idea.
I can't believe I am reading this! I just said to my brother and son, we need all 18 yr. olds to be required to serve 2yrs with pay for our country. It is not a draft, but a prep to instill a responsibility and direction to millions of wayward youth. Drugs, gangs, potential crimminals, etc! There would be a great change in this country if we did this!
Well, duh. It is to be expected that communist ideas would be commonly (though not exclusively, because some rightists, e.g. MacKenzie, are stupid) sponsored by the left.