Posted on 05/26/2018 6:41:14 AM PDT by Kaslin
French President Emmanuel Macron this year reintroduced national service, also known as conscription, to France in order to “foster patriotism and heal social divisions.”
At a time when our nation is the most hyperpolarized it has ever been, when our young generation increasingly questions the very worth of America itself, and our country, particularly new generations is at the worst health in history, it is time to consider whether we should implement national service ourselves.
National service is in common use currently across democratic nations in the world as a form of civic duty amidst the freedom one is provided, just like paying taxes. It usually takes the form of mandatory military, or civilian service for objectors or those who choose, for all adults upon reaching the age of 18.
Conscripts are usually paid some form of nominal salary and are required to serve usually between six months to two years. Some nations have it only for men while others have it for both men and women.
Israel’s IDF is perhaps the most widely known conscription force, requiring all citizens, male and female, to serve in the military with very few exemptions. Conscription was common to the nations of Western Europe during the Cold War for obvious reasons, but still remained for many years afterwards until it was usually phased it out during the 2000’s.
Amidst the current time of great social turmoil in Europe, it appears many governments have realized a nostalgia for the widespread benefits of universal service. Beyond France, Sweden recently reintroduced mandatory military service for the first time in about a decade. In Finland, now over 80% of young men perform service. Norway in 2016 expanded its conscription to include women.
Clearly conscription is on the return for a variety of reasons.
In the United States, the idea of national service is as old as our nation itself. In the Revolutionary era, national service existed in quasi-form as part of general citizen participation in the various state and local militias. It was a point of debate among the Founding Fathers, split between those who favored a professional standing army versus general universal service.
Over the centuries national service has gone from its militia form to a variety of permutations, perhaps most notably the wartime draft first officially enacted by the federal government during the U.S. Civil War.
It was instituted again during World War I, raising an army of millions. In 1940, just before U.S. entry into World War II, over 71% of the population polled wanted immediate national military service, resulting in a peacetime draft that would soon be utilized for active service after the attack on Pearl Harbor.
The peacetime draft would continue afterwards into the 1950’s, utilized during Korea and our numerous Cold War bases around the world, as well as during the Vietnam War when public dissatisfaction finally saw its end in 1973.
The call for national service has also materialized in numerous civilian programs, such as the Public Works Administration of the 1930’s, as well as the still-existing Peace Corps and the Corporation for National Service’s AmeriCorps.
The Selective Service, which requires all men to register for potential conscription upon reaching age 18 and be ready until age 25, remains in place since its use during World War I’s draft. In 2016, Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton called for women to also be included in Selective Service registration and the United States Senate passed a bill supporting such as well.
Theoretically, the Selective Service system could even now be potentially activated for conscription, although it likely would be better for our country to go through a more thorough deliberative process, with pilot programs, studies, and a national discussion.
National service has always remained present in our national discourse since, with the Universal National Service Act, among other variations, regularly being proposed throughout the years in Congress and the idea seeing occasional bipartisan calls for enactment.
It should be very much apparent why national service in the United States could solve much of our current social problems. Military service promotes discipline, grit, determination and teamwork. It gives life skills and supports physical fitness, both at the time and afterwards. It introduces people to those from all walks of life, as the U.S. proudly remains one of the world’s most diverse organization.
Furthermore, our nation is experiencing an increasing gap between civilians and service-members with a slew of negative externalities and that seems difficult to solve. According to Pew Research, in 1980 veterans accounted for 18% of U.S. adults. In 2016 it was 7% and declining.
National service sounds daunting, but our country is at a difficult point right now. It seems it’s at least an idea worth considering and exploring by our policymakers and discussing among our citizenry.
I agree. Not one of our kids turned over to their bloody and perverted hands until the leadership changes. Mattis still hasn’t reversed Obama policies on women infantry officers, trannies, homos, thrown out wiccan chaplains, etc. Hell, that dirty communist from West Point is still a platoon leader somewhere!!!
Leadership and culture must change before our kids can be asked.
If you were to line up all the young snowflakes, malcontents and slackers in this country and do a profile of each one, I can almost guarantee you that the most common characteristic they have is that they've never held a job -- even a newspaper delivery route -- in their lives.
Erich Reimer is 27 years old today. I dare him today to go enlist. Or hell, he could just come spend one weekend mowing my lawn and pulling weeds while I berate him and tell him he may not go to town tonight.
You nailed it!
“Being drafted changed my life for the better, but I didn’t think so at the time. It’s not the kind of “rehab” I would’ve volunteered for.”
I have to agree with you. November 22, 1965 was a very dark day in my life. But, it taught me so much and made me a better man.
I don't want to waste my time trying to train people who don't want to be there or go to Leavenworth for disciplining them.
Today's professional military, made up of volunteers, is not equipped to deal with disgruntled and angry malcontents.
Yep. He can choose any branch!
I was 34 when I enlisted. That was nearly 15 years ago and I'm still there, thanking God every day for finally making a good decision after making mostly bad ones.
The military today is full of 27-year old E3s and E4s, many with college degrees. Of course, they're not making the kind of scratch that Erich Reimer has grown accustomed to.
Thought this was a good place to show this photo......we ares sooo fortunate
to have a President and Mattis in chage!
“Reimer served as a national Democratic Party youth leader for several years[1][2][3] and Chair of the Board of Directors of the National Youth Association[4] before expressing discontent in the 2012 election and later switching to the Republican Party”
The left always argues for the egalitarian nature of national service. Wish it were true. Well it does is bulk up government with more people to control and supervise
You cannot force someone to be altruistic
I served in the Army from 76-84, i.e. at the outset of the all volunteer force. The only way I would agree to a draft is if there were no exemptions...better yet, those whose parents are "public servants", or Wall Street millionaires, or K Street lobbyists, those sons and daughters get moved to the front of the line.
Our country's history is replete with examples of how the wealthy and privileged were able to avoid military service.
I was proud to serve with my soldiers during difficult times. One Vulcan platoon I led had 3 squad leaders that were "acting jacks", i.e. 19-20 YO corporals with less than two years in the Army. They busted their butts for me, and we had the only platoon in our battery to pass a tactical evaluation (ARTEP).
Looking back on it, nothing in my 40 years of working comes close to the 4 years I served in Germany in terms of personal importance. Were the other 36 years a waste? Not at all, they simply pale in comparison to the personal and professional experiences I enjoyed from 77-81.
The modern army cannot afford to have folks that cannot read, who are addicted, or intellectually challenged.
The training is expensive, the tasks are challenging, and the idea of a grunt army has passed into history
And what you describe a) would not be successful and b) would be an enormous waste of time money and manpower
In Israel every one serves both men and women and its commonplace to see uniformed soldiers with rifles hitchiking home or riding the bus.
The IDF is a great social leveler, providing opportunities for immigrants like Ethiopian Jews, for religious Jews, Arabs and even disabled people like Downs Syndrome folks and the deaf.
As a result its like the country’s family and people who have served get offers from employers. Military service in Israel created a nation because of the obligation to defend the country.
That extends to leaders - Prime Minister Netanyahu served in an elite army unit.
Include something in the last year or two of high school (as part of the curriculum) - and include women, since they’ve insisted on a piece of everything else. As far as a “draft” in which the government takes custody of young adults, that has become indefensible in light of the nation-building BS of the last few decades - you know, where Iraqis and Afghans are now shooting Americans with weapons WE GAVE THEM a few decades ago.
I suspect any push for this is driven most by the problems of assimilation - in Europe AND the US. Starting with language itself, too many people have nothing in common with the people to their left and right. I guess that is where the “fix” and “renew” comes in...
My dear friend, comrade and ex-POW, Major General John Borling, USAF (Ret.) has advocated this for several years. His organization is “Service Over Self”.
NO...imagine what Obama/Hiilary would have done with their very own private army...
I saw a Senior Chief being interviewed about Fleet Week in NYC on Fox News say according to the latest figures, only 23 percent of 18-22 years old are even qualified to serve in the US Navy.
He mentioned fitness as well as mental abilities, as well as criminal record, drug usage, etc. The military has far higher standards today but that means they have fewer discipline problems.
Sad, because if standards where tighter when I joined in 1976, I wouldn’t have qualified, either.
He wants to train more Muslims.
I agree this is a lousy idea. In fact, if I were drafted I’d probably take what we used to call “French Leave.” :-)
For one thing the French, like us are being overrun with foreign nationals who really, really hate us. Why give them military training, let them make contact with other trained diversity folks, and turn them loose back into the nation they despise?
I personally can’t see why we should train people who will certainly try to overthrow us.
One thing I would like to see in our country is a return and reformation of local militias. There is one example of a local militia that few are aware of: The volunteer fire departments in our rural and other outlying areas.
A reformed American militia will be volunteer and strictly loyal American citizens. A local well-regulated militia will answer to the county sheriff who is the chief law enforcement officer of a county. He is duly elected, not appointed by professional politicians, and his power in the county is greater than federal law enforcement.
Indeed, we would be much safer with a loyal well-regulated militia operating everywhere in the land. But we must be very selective about its membership.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.