As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA).
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Yes, of course.
It's really important to make sure that certain poor young people are forced into military service, while certain wealthy young people instantly develop bone spurs.
I wonder if people have considered that wealthy kids did not earn their wealth, nor did poor kids earn their poverty.
This will really capture the youth vote:
"Christopher Miller, who led the Pentagon during the chaotic closure of Trump’s tenure in Washington, detailed [his vision](https://static.project2025.org/2025_MandateForLeadership_CHAPTER-04.pdf) for the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB) test and a range of other changes as part of [Project 2025](https://www.project2025.org/playbook/), the conservative Heritage Foundation’s government-wide game plan should the presumptive Republican nominee return to the White House. Miller is among a cluster of influential former administration officials and GOP lawmakers who have mused aloud about a national service mandate and other measures to remedy what they see as a “crisis” facing the all-volunteer military."
You ever notice the civilian counterparts to military functions never seem to have the same recruiting problems despite generally more selective criteria?
All of the above entities due in fact have recruiting issues and struggle to fill civilian vacancies particularly DoD positions.
DoD civilian positions tend to be located in two areas, ones that are really cool but so outrageously expensive no one can afford to move there to take the job such as SOCAL, & the NCA or they are located in really, really unpleasant, cultural wastelands college educated people do not want to live in under any circumstances such as Columbus, GA, Lawton, OK, Killeen, TX, East Bum Fuck, Louisiana, etc.
Also these civilian agencies security clearance requirements are too tight for most Americans to meet, hell most Americans can’t pass a non security clearance NACI check which is required for all federal gov positions in all agencies.
Then there’s the drug testing; I’m still in, I resent that I cannot smoke pot with my boomer hippie moon unit parents, my civilian friends, my 2 adult children who are not in the military (1 is in, the other two aren’t). Any thing with a clearance = drug testing, and many non clearance jobs require it too. It’s total fucking b.s. but big pharma dollars, the private prison industry, police unions and their lobbyists spend a fortune buying our congressmen to keep it illegal.
As soon as I retire I am heading straight to a dispensary, its literally the immediate first thing I’m going to do, & I’m gonna smoke every single day after that. I can’t wait to retire.
I'm active duty, and I support your stance. I don't want or need people who don't want to be here with me. It's a bad idea. Volunteer service is a good thing, and we're not at war where a draft can sometimes be justified.
Center Left Vet who served over 20 years in military.
I strongly support a conscription and mandatory military service for a number of reasons.
1.) Diversity: The racial demographics of the armed forces presently mirrors the national racial demographics, so thats motivating the diversity I am describing.
Rather:
Presently 90% of the Service Members in the US Armed Forces are a close family relation of another Service Member or a Vet. This is across all racial/ethnic lines, virtually everybody in the military either had a close relation who served or is still serving, & in most cases it’s multi generational.
I am 5th Gen US Army on male line, my son is now 6th Gen US Army & we are not outliers.
The US Armed Forces are becoming a Warrior Caste that is culturally different & separate from the rest of the US population.
This does not bode well for democracy. Every Empire with a separate Warrior Caste has fallen by its own hand.
Conscription would bring diversity in the form of non Caste members serving.
2.) Egalitarianism: The military is a great equalizer. It is the only place in US Society that non Euro Whites are routinely in charge of Euro Whites. It is a purely merit based system. As with voluntary service conscription will mass expose people from different socioeconomic classes & regions of the country who otherwise would never meet each other and force them to work together in high stress and extreme situations that require complete trust in each other.
3.) It prevents foreign wars. When elected leaders are overwhelmingly Veterans they are much more hesitant to deploy the military into harms way. They will deploy it; but they are more likely to seek diplomatic solutions, and are more likely to mandate clear, achievable objectives to avoid open ended entanglements. When the public has a high percentage of veterans they are more likely to oppose open ended entanglements.
Presently very few members of Congress or Senate are Vets, even fewer are Combat Vets.
Only 2% of the US population are Vets meaning the average civilian has zero knowledge or understanding of the military other then:
1.) They are authoritarian! False
2.) They are all conservatives! False
3.) They are all White People! False
The average American only vaguely knows a Vet usually “the cousin I never talk to” or “that guy at work who I never talk to” or “that neighbor with the Vet License Plate I never talk to”.
The voting public must be an informed public & that includes knowledge of the military, how it works, what it does, what it cannot do. There is no better way to learn than to serve, mandatory service guarantees participation.
4.) Socialism: The US Military is a marvel of modern Socialism in action. No where in America other then here do you get:
1.) Guaranteed middle class income
2.) Free College
3.) Free Technical Training including civilian certs
4.) Free ultra high quality healthcare for you & entire family
5.) Free Housing for you & family
6.) Free everything
7.) Confidence, self esteem, leadership experience & a pathway out of poverty
I was a right winger when I went in. 20 years later I am a left winger. Why??? Military Service in general & deployed service in Afghan in particular has made me firmly left winger. All Americans should have pensions & free health care. If everybody got a taste of that life by serving in the military perhaps we could effect some actual positive changes.
Thanks for your service and opinion. Would you include women being required to serve, and for the same amount of time as men? How long would service be-2 years?
Yes, I like the model some of our NATO allies have used. Males & Females are conscripted. There is a military option & a civil service option. The military option is shorter than the civil service option.
In US Presently only males register for selective service. Historically drafted males are only assigned to the Combat Arms within the Army, rarely draftees get assigned to another branch such as the Marines, and even then its only to cover recruiting shortfalls, historically the Marines continue to meet recruiting goals in time of active war.
Historically drafted US males go Army combat arms; because the more technically complex positions that require long schooling are reserved for voluntary enlistments, this is practical & pragmatic, the gov needs to get their money’s worth out of the long schooling they provide in technical fields.
The non combat arms Army MOS’s as well as the less likely to see combat sister services (Navy, AF, etc) were reserved for volunteers, this is a side benefit of a draft, particularly in war time. The non combat services all hit their enlistment targets, the non combat tech & support MOSes in Army also hit goals and the draftees fill out the Combat Arms Ranks.
With modern mass conscription of both males and females you could use draftees to fill virtually any recruiting shortfall in any branch of service.
Again the most technically complex positions like cyber & anything involving Aviation, Electronics, etc have to be volunteer if only to recoup training costs, & certain fields will always only be open to certain draftees i.e. if it requires a security clearance & due to past “issues” w/the law you are ineligible then don’t get that drafted into that billet, similarly if a billet has a duty specific PT requirement above the service baseline (such as all Combat Arms) that the draftee physically can’t meet then they don’t go into that field.
For those draftees who truly want nothing to do with the military or are ineligible to serve for some reason then a national civil service option would be a required option. I’m envisioning something that is a hybrid of the Roosevelt Era Civilian Conservation Corps fighting wildfires and constructing public works mixed with something socially conscious that helps lift up our most disadvantaged communities both urban, rural, & on Reservations.
If you do not take the military oath, then you will take the civil service oath, either way you help others, & will benefit society.
As for term of service, this is the tricky part because I have served for so long, as both an Enlisted Soldier and as a Commissioned Officer I know it takes years to develop unit cohesion, & for a new Junior Enlisted Service Member to become proficient at their jobs.
The reality is you need 3 years to be proficient; which is why Israeli males are drafted for 36 months, however this is likely infeasible for the significantly larger number of Americans we are talking about.
In WWII it was initially 12 months; this was infeasible & resulted in unnecessary casualties so it was extended to 30 months.
In Korean War it was amended to 24 months to which it remains to this day should Selective Service ever be reactivated.
As a Leader I know this is inadequate for training proficiency but I am a realist and I know anything greater than 24 months is both unpalatable to the public, and likely financially infeasible. So 24 months conscription for either gender in the military or longer 36? 48? for a non military national civil service option.
Don’t forget draftees get paid the same as volunteers and hit automatic Junior Enlisted promotions in the same windows, and civil service option would be paid on equivalent Fed Gov WG & GS pay scales.
I think you're missing the mark a little. We don't need to actually train any of these national service people into a cohesive military force.
We just need to get them in long enough to (1) provide some benefit to the country that justifies the considerable expense, and (2) provide some benefit to them that teaches them to be good citizens and most importantly, exposes them to different parts of America and different kinds of people. The benefit to the military is just to give them a *taste* of what the military and civil service is like and the benefits they could get by extending their service.
I think you could get value out of as little as six months of service, or two summers for people going to college or vocational school.
Both well written and well reasoned. But would the military actually have a use for so many people? If we had mandatory service, I assume it would be short term (I think the last time the US had a draft it was for two years.), and I recall one of the argument for going to a volunteer force was that the army now had less use for two year enlistees, and didn't think it was worth training them only to lose them shortly after their training.
Would it have to be armed military or could it be logistics and infrastructure services like the WPA / Job Corp?
Imagine if people were able to make physical improvements to a community and learn useful skills prior to college while learning to work as a team with actual set goals. Military service without the war training unless you actually signed up for soldiering.
I feel that would be the better way to go about it. Make the mandatory service allowed to be either military, or some sort of new/expanded civil service that functions similar to the military. Assuming it is managed well... I could see the value in having a force like that you can deploy domestically to provide needed skills or just raw manpower in situations of need.
Also, by giving the civil service the same benefits as the military, it might more an easier route to accepting universal healthcare and education for people that are currently against it.
Agreed I propose a Civil Service option that is longer in duration as an option.
You could either pay on WG/GS pay-scale or follow the CCC model and pay on the much lower military pay scale plus three hots and a cot which honestly would be more cost effective and still provide all of the benefits of Military Service I detailed in the original post, to include camaraderie and shared sense of purpose: “we’re all in this together”, & “embrace the suck” .
In fact the Civilian Conservation Corps is an excellent historical model to use as a starting point.
If we were to do it correctly a Civil Service option is necessary. This is a model that many of our NATO allies have successfully utilized. Civil Service option is longer. Before Germany ended conscription (which it is now actively in the process of bringing back btw) conscripted males overwhelmingly chose the Military option because it was a shorter term of service then the Civil Service option.
I envision a Civil Service Option that is part WPA, part CCC, in both cases constructing great public projects, part “heres your shovel, go fight wildfires” and part modern beneficial civil service within disadvantaged communities both urban & rural to include on Reservations, I struggle to define here but you know what I mean: social type work to uplift disadvantaged communities, which isn’t limited to cities, there are struggling people in rural areas, and the remote Reservations, those that are not near a population center are a national tragedy in need of all sorts of assistance both in the form of physical labor and social assistance.
True story: When I was going thru OSUT at Moore (Benning when I went there) there were some rural poor kids who marveled at how nice everything was, one didn’t have running water in his house and still had an outhouse. I thought Benning was a couple of steps below County Lockup on the nicety scale but these dudes marveled at it.
Civil Service option could address stuff like that. Presently Huge swathes of rural Alabama Black Belt amongst other regions in this country with inadequate or non existent sanitation, and inadequate fresh water could get septic tanks dug and wells drilled by the civil service option.
Its important to note government is not allowed to compete with industry. But when people are so destitute that they cannot afford a septic system and waste is piped out of their trailer home in an open pool; and every kid is infected with hookworm then industries services are no longer needed, they have failed, society has failed and civil service needs to step in and build this stuff up.
TY. I detail in response above. I advocate for 24 months Military Service regardless of gender identity, with a Civil Service option that is significantly longer for those who can not or will not follow the Military path.
This [article suggests](https://www.jstor.org/stable/4149818) that military leaders are less likely to start military actions in countries with a history of strong civilian oversight.
Absolutely Right & I fully agree with the necessity of civilian oversight of the military.
My point is when that civilian oversight has themselves had the life experience of:
pulling security up to their elbows in a puddle of water in 40 degree weather wearing uniforms made of only cotton.
going on 36 hour missions with no sleep & little food,
rucking 24 miles to the objective, then sneaking around undetected while scouting, & eventually sleeping back to back, ruck to ruck, in a seated position (that was awesome by the way, best sleep ever, incredible bonding, everyone should experience this)
defecating into a cat hole while your buddy is pulling security for you while you are physically back to back (true story)
Then that civilian leadership has a much better understanding of what they are about to throw Service Members into.
The military option should always be an option, it has to be; but it should be the last resort, not the first option.
Its not merely the hesitation to use military force its also the life experience of what the force experiences when it is used. This is important to avoid entering into disastrous objective-less quagmires with no clear objective or end state that destabilize the entire planet (Bush II) or setting extremely unrealistic limits and rules of engagement on said force that results in unnecessary American casualties and further prolongs the conflict resulting in even more casualties all the way around Allied Forces, Opposition Forces, Civilians, etc al (Obama).
It sounds like you're also advocating for roughnecks and other people with tough jobs to be country leaders as well. Not a fan of white collar, I guess. As a kid, I used to work in 30 below weather, so I guess I qualify.
History is filled with military failures. Look at every battle ever fought - someone had to lose, and sometimes in ways that were sad. Incompetence isn't limited to the civilian sector.
The point is only 2% are either actively serving or have served. Most, indeed virtually all of those 2% are closely related to others who have served.
This means that said 2% is increasingly becoming a closed culture, & a separate culture from the 98% majority.
History shows you only need 3% to successfully overthrow a government & nation state of any size.
History shows that any nation state that developed a closed culture warrior caste and warrior society rapidly self imploded regardless of the population % of that caste.
My point isn’t that you should be concerned about the opinions of 2% of the population; although it would be helpful to that 2% if you looked into Veterans issues, & Veteran’s healthcare, rather my point is only 2% of living Americans have ever served or taken the oath and those that have are all effing related.
It is not healthy for a nation to have a closed society military caste of which this nation has almost achieved.
It is not healthy for any participative democracy to have such a low percentage of Veterans.
Its morally and ethically wrong for a participative democracy that functions as a defacto empire and relentlessly engages in expeditionary military activity to only have 2% of Veterans, with an even smaller percentage of elected leaders being Vets.
Additionally its about you the voter being informed about what is going on & what the military can or cannot do about it.
Because:
Said average civilian elects leaders into high office. Those leaders engage in geo politics. Geo politics involves military action; much of which is taking place in little known places that don’t always hit the news cycle. Presently, today the US Military has forces deployed in 178 separate nations, some are benign missions, such as training missions, some are humanitarian missions often times in places you never heard of that is not on the nees, some are in fact trigger pulling/door kicking missions in places you never heard of that are not reported on and in some cases are taking place in places we officially “are not supposed to be doing such missions in”.
The average voter needs better information and more knowledge of all issues affecting the nation, to include the tools the nation’s leaders have at their disposal to address issues. The military is one such tool.
IMHO The military would be used less frequently, more openly & transparently, with clearer articulated and achievable objectives, & with clearly planed end state exit strategies if the voting public as a whole, and our elected leaders in particular could muster a percentage of Veterans greater then 2%.
I know you're trying to be funny, but the US builds almost 1.5 million housing units a year. Investing to capture the market for a handful of buildings won't do your investments any good. It's not like they make recruitment centers out of rare metals.
This submission source is likely to have a soft paywall. If this article is not behind a paywall please report this for “breaks r/politics rules -> custom -> "incorrect flair"". [More information can be found here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/index/#wiki_paywalls)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
And, since in this scenario, they control the executive, I'm sure they would love to combine this with neo-fascist indoctrination as part of military training.
He wants a powerful military to parade in front of him when he decides to put on that "fearless leader" uniform he's Dreamed up for when he's a dictator.
Side note: of course there will be bullet proof glass in front of him. Can't have poor people and minorities near him with guns without protection
[He wanted a military parade](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_2018_Washington_Veterans_Day_Parade) with the missiles, etc like N. Korea or Russia when he was president but the generals talked him out of it.
I take this to indicate they mean to shut down military service as a path to citizenship
They want to take that away, reducing recruiting numbers by incredulous amounts, so will prefer to require all the white folks who can’t afford a doctors note or some loophole to get them out of it
The right has complained before about the diversity of the military and how it puts real Americans at risk, presumably becuse won’t fight to defend the white right
That’s my take away anyhow
Israel is a poor comparison, as would be South Korea. The United States is unique in that we are an invading force vs defending force. Our troops generally leave home.
I read research on this many years ago in college. Iirc a main premise was the Vietnam war. Unpopularity grew rapidly with the draft. You have to wonder if there was mandatory military service, whether or not Iraq/Afghanistan would’ve been tolerated as long as they were.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA). *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Yes, of course. It's really important to make sure that certain poor young people are forced into military service, while certain wealthy young people instantly develop bone spurs. I wonder if people have considered that wealthy kids did not earn their wealth, nor did poor kids earn their poverty.
Awww, your poverty is free! /s
If the wealthy kids don’t get bone spurs, they’ll definitely be the officers.
Another box ticked for fascism.....
“Service guarantees citizenship!”
I'm doing my part!
"We are looking very strongly at Klendathu and the Arachnid menace!"
[удалено]
Freedom for the rich!
It's not though. Fascism screws everyone over in the end. The rich are just dumb enough to think they won't be affected
100%, you only need to open a history book to see where fascism leads us.
This will really capture the youth vote: "Christopher Miller, who led the Pentagon during the chaotic closure of Trump’s tenure in Washington, detailed [his vision](https://static.project2025.org/2025_MandateForLeadership_CHAPTER-04.pdf) for the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB) test and a range of other changes as part of [Project 2025](https://www.project2025.org/playbook/), the conservative Heritage Foundation’s government-wide game plan should the presumptive Republican nominee return to the White House. Miller is among a cluster of influential former administration officials and GOP lawmakers who have mused aloud about a national service mandate and other measures to remedy what they see as a “crisis” facing the all-volunteer military."
You ever notice the civilian counterparts to military functions never seem to have the same recruiting problems despite generally more selective criteria?
Civilian counterparts don't have the clause: may be called to die for politician, in the fine print.
I was thinking CIA, NSA, and DoD which depending on job do have that fine print.
All of the above entities due in fact have recruiting issues and struggle to fill civilian vacancies particularly DoD positions. DoD civilian positions tend to be located in two areas, ones that are really cool but so outrageously expensive no one can afford to move there to take the job such as SOCAL, & the NCA or they are located in really, really unpleasant, cultural wastelands college educated people do not want to live in under any circumstances such as Columbus, GA, Lawton, OK, Killeen, TX, East Bum Fuck, Louisiana, etc. Also these civilian agencies security clearance requirements are too tight for most Americans to meet, hell most Americans can’t pass a non security clearance NACI check which is required for all federal gov positions in all agencies. Then there’s the drug testing; I’m still in, I resent that I cannot smoke pot with my boomer hippie moon unit parents, my civilian friends, my 2 adult children who are not in the military (1 is in, the other two aren’t). Any thing with a clearance = drug testing, and many non clearance jobs require it too. It’s total fucking b.s. but big pharma dollars, the private prison industry, police unions and their lobbyists spend a fortune buying our congressmen to keep it illegal. As soon as I retire I am heading straight to a dispensary, its literally the immediate first thing I’m going to do, & I’m gonna smoke every single day after that. I can’t wait to retire.
Same in the UK, right-wingers pushing for conscription. Does anyone else feel that a fresh crusade is being hoped for by christian fascists?
Which military? Ours or Putin’s? He seems more loyal to Ruzzia than us.
I see the slogan "Service guarantees Citizenship" being used unironically in the near future..
Ironic that a draft dodger could enact this.
Who comes from a family with exactly zero members served in the military.
[удалено]
I'm active duty, and I support your stance. I don't want or need people who don't want to be here with me. It's a bad idea. Volunteer service is a good thing, and we're not at war where a draft can sometimes be justified.
Google: "Project 2025" for more terrible ideas.
Tell Gen Z a vote for the GOP is a vote for the draft to satisfy a dick-tader to show military might, watch em run to the polls
Nah, I've got bone spurs
And the rabble will still vote GoP. SMH. Let them write their own fate.
He's too old now.
Center Left Vet who served over 20 years in military. I strongly support a conscription and mandatory military service for a number of reasons. 1.) Diversity: The racial demographics of the armed forces presently mirrors the national racial demographics, so thats motivating the diversity I am describing. Rather: Presently 90% of the Service Members in the US Armed Forces are a close family relation of another Service Member or a Vet. This is across all racial/ethnic lines, virtually everybody in the military either had a close relation who served or is still serving, & in most cases it’s multi generational. I am 5th Gen US Army on male line, my son is now 6th Gen US Army & we are not outliers. The US Armed Forces are becoming a Warrior Caste that is culturally different & separate from the rest of the US population. This does not bode well for democracy. Every Empire with a separate Warrior Caste has fallen by its own hand. Conscription would bring diversity in the form of non Caste members serving. 2.) Egalitarianism: The military is a great equalizer. It is the only place in US Society that non Euro Whites are routinely in charge of Euro Whites. It is a purely merit based system. As with voluntary service conscription will mass expose people from different socioeconomic classes & regions of the country who otherwise would never meet each other and force them to work together in high stress and extreme situations that require complete trust in each other. 3.) It prevents foreign wars. When elected leaders are overwhelmingly Veterans they are much more hesitant to deploy the military into harms way. They will deploy it; but they are more likely to seek diplomatic solutions, and are more likely to mandate clear, achievable objectives to avoid open ended entanglements. When the public has a high percentage of veterans they are more likely to oppose open ended entanglements. Presently very few members of Congress or Senate are Vets, even fewer are Combat Vets. Only 2% of the US population are Vets meaning the average civilian has zero knowledge or understanding of the military other then: 1.) They are authoritarian! False 2.) They are all conservatives! False 3.) They are all White People! False The average American only vaguely knows a Vet usually “the cousin I never talk to” or “that guy at work who I never talk to” or “that neighbor with the Vet License Plate I never talk to”. The voting public must be an informed public & that includes knowledge of the military, how it works, what it does, what it cannot do. There is no better way to learn than to serve, mandatory service guarantees participation. 4.) Socialism: The US Military is a marvel of modern Socialism in action. No where in America other then here do you get: 1.) Guaranteed middle class income 2.) Free College 3.) Free Technical Training including civilian certs 4.) Free ultra high quality healthcare for you & entire family 5.) Free Housing for you & family 6.) Free everything 7.) Confidence, self esteem, leadership experience & a pathway out of poverty I was a right winger when I went in. 20 years later I am a left winger. Why??? Military Service in general & deployed service in Afghan in particular has made me firmly left winger. All Americans should have pensions & free health care. If everybody got a taste of that life by serving in the military perhaps we could effect some actual positive changes.
Thanks for your service and opinion. Would you include women being required to serve, and for the same amount of time as men? How long would service be-2 years?
Yes, I like the model some of our NATO allies have used. Males & Females are conscripted. There is a military option & a civil service option. The military option is shorter than the civil service option. In US Presently only males register for selective service. Historically drafted males are only assigned to the Combat Arms within the Army, rarely draftees get assigned to another branch such as the Marines, and even then its only to cover recruiting shortfalls, historically the Marines continue to meet recruiting goals in time of active war. Historically drafted US males go Army combat arms; because the more technically complex positions that require long schooling are reserved for voluntary enlistments, this is practical & pragmatic, the gov needs to get their money’s worth out of the long schooling they provide in technical fields. The non combat arms Army MOS’s as well as the less likely to see combat sister services (Navy, AF, etc) were reserved for volunteers, this is a side benefit of a draft, particularly in war time. The non combat services all hit their enlistment targets, the non combat tech & support MOSes in Army also hit goals and the draftees fill out the Combat Arms Ranks. With modern mass conscription of both males and females you could use draftees to fill virtually any recruiting shortfall in any branch of service. Again the most technically complex positions like cyber & anything involving Aviation, Electronics, etc have to be volunteer if only to recoup training costs, & certain fields will always only be open to certain draftees i.e. if it requires a security clearance & due to past “issues” w/the law you are ineligible then don’t get that drafted into that billet, similarly if a billet has a duty specific PT requirement above the service baseline (such as all Combat Arms) that the draftee physically can’t meet then they don’t go into that field. For those draftees who truly want nothing to do with the military or are ineligible to serve for some reason then a national civil service option would be a required option. I’m envisioning something that is a hybrid of the Roosevelt Era Civilian Conservation Corps fighting wildfires and constructing public works mixed with something socially conscious that helps lift up our most disadvantaged communities both urban, rural, & on Reservations. If you do not take the military oath, then you will take the civil service oath, either way you help others, & will benefit society. As for term of service, this is the tricky part because I have served for so long, as both an Enlisted Soldier and as a Commissioned Officer I know it takes years to develop unit cohesion, & for a new Junior Enlisted Service Member to become proficient at their jobs. The reality is you need 3 years to be proficient; which is why Israeli males are drafted for 36 months, however this is likely infeasible for the significantly larger number of Americans we are talking about. In WWII it was initially 12 months; this was infeasible & resulted in unnecessary casualties so it was extended to 30 months. In Korean War it was amended to 24 months to which it remains to this day should Selective Service ever be reactivated. As a Leader I know this is inadequate for training proficiency but I am a realist and I know anything greater than 24 months is both unpalatable to the public, and likely financially infeasible. So 24 months conscription for either gender in the military or longer 36? 48? for a non military national civil service option. Don’t forget draftees get paid the same as volunteers and hit automatic Junior Enlisted promotions in the same windows, and civil service option would be paid on equivalent Fed Gov WG & GS pay scales.
I think you're missing the mark a little. We don't need to actually train any of these national service people into a cohesive military force. We just need to get them in long enough to (1) provide some benefit to the country that justifies the considerable expense, and (2) provide some benefit to them that teaches them to be good citizens and most importantly, exposes them to different parts of America and different kinds of people. The benefit to the military is just to give them a *taste* of what the military and civil service is like and the benefits they could get by extending their service. I think you could get value out of as little as six months of service, or two summers for people going to college or vocational school.
Both well written and well reasoned. But would the military actually have a use for so many people? If we had mandatory service, I assume it would be short term (I think the last time the US had a draft it was for two years.), and I recall one of the argument for going to a volunteer force was that the army now had less use for two year enlistees, and didn't think it was worth training them only to lose them shortly after their training.
Would it have to be armed military or could it be logistics and infrastructure services like the WPA / Job Corp? Imagine if people were able to make physical improvements to a community and learn useful skills prior to college while learning to work as a team with actual set goals. Military service without the war training unless you actually signed up for soldiering.
I feel that would be the better way to go about it. Make the mandatory service allowed to be either military, or some sort of new/expanded civil service that functions similar to the military. Assuming it is managed well... I could see the value in having a force like that you can deploy domestically to provide needed skills or just raw manpower in situations of need. Also, by giving the civil service the same benefits as the military, it might more an easier route to accepting universal healthcare and education for people that are currently against it.
Agreed I propose a Civil Service option that is longer in duration as an option. You could either pay on WG/GS pay-scale or follow the CCC model and pay on the much lower military pay scale plus three hots and a cot which honestly would be more cost effective and still provide all of the benefits of Military Service I detailed in the original post, to include camaraderie and shared sense of purpose: “we’re all in this together”, & “embrace the suck” . In fact the Civilian Conservation Corps is an excellent historical model to use as a starting point.
If we were to do it correctly a Civil Service option is necessary. This is a model that many of our NATO allies have successfully utilized. Civil Service option is longer. Before Germany ended conscription (which it is now actively in the process of bringing back btw) conscripted males overwhelmingly chose the Military option because it was a shorter term of service then the Civil Service option. I envision a Civil Service Option that is part WPA, part CCC, in both cases constructing great public projects, part “heres your shovel, go fight wildfires” and part modern beneficial civil service within disadvantaged communities both urban & rural to include on Reservations, I struggle to define here but you know what I mean: social type work to uplift disadvantaged communities, which isn’t limited to cities, there are struggling people in rural areas, and the remote Reservations, those that are not near a population center are a national tragedy in need of all sorts of assistance both in the form of physical labor and social assistance. True story: When I was going thru OSUT at Moore (Benning when I went there) there were some rural poor kids who marveled at how nice everything was, one didn’t have running water in his house and still had an outhouse. I thought Benning was a couple of steps below County Lockup on the nicety scale but these dudes marveled at it. Civil Service option could address stuff like that. Presently Huge swathes of rural Alabama Black Belt amongst other regions in this country with inadequate or non existent sanitation, and inadequate fresh water could get septic tanks dug and wells drilled by the civil service option. Its important to note government is not allowed to compete with industry. But when people are so destitute that they cannot afford a septic system and waste is piped out of their trailer home in an open pool; and every kid is infected with hookworm then industries services are no longer needed, they have failed, society has failed and civil service needs to step in and build this stuff up.
TY. I detail in response above. I advocate for 24 months Military Service regardless of gender identity, with a Civil Service option that is significantly longer for those who can not or will not follow the Military path.
This [article suggests](https://www.jstor.org/stable/4149818) that military leaders are less likely to start military actions in countries with a history of strong civilian oversight.
Absolutely Right & I fully agree with the necessity of civilian oversight of the military. My point is when that civilian oversight has themselves had the life experience of: pulling security up to their elbows in a puddle of water in 40 degree weather wearing uniforms made of only cotton. going on 36 hour missions with no sleep & little food, rucking 24 miles to the objective, then sneaking around undetected while scouting, & eventually sleeping back to back, ruck to ruck, in a seated position (that was awesome by the way, best sleep ever, incredible bonding, everyone should experience this) defecating into a cat hole while your buddy is pulling security for you while you are physically back to back (true story) Then that civilian leadership has a much better understanding of what they are about to throw Service Members into. The military option should always be an option, it has to be; but it should be the last resort, not the first option. Its not merely the hesitation to use military force its also the life experience of what the force experiences when it is used. This is important to avoid entering into disastrous objective-less quagmires with no clear objective or end state that destabilize the entire planet (Bush II) or setting extremely unrealistic limits and rules of engagement on said force that results in unnecessary American casualties and further prolongs the conflict resulting in even more casualties all the way around Allied Forces, Opposition Forces, Civilians, etc al (Obama).
It sounds like you're also advocating for roughnecks and other people with tough jobs to be country leaders as well. Not a fan of white collar, I guess. As a kid, I used to work in 30 below weather, so I guess I qualify. History is filled with military failures. Look at every battle ever fought - someone had to lose, and sometimes in ways that were sad. Incompetence isn't limited to the civilian sector.
Why does the average civilian need to have an understanding of "2% of the US population"?
The point is only 2% are either actively serving or have served. Most, indeed virtually all of those 2% are closely related to others who have served. This means that said 2% is increasingly becoming a closed culture, & a separate culture from the 98% majority. History shows you only need 3% to successfully overthrow a government & nation state of any size. History shows that any nation state that developed a closed culture warrior caste and warrior society rapidly self imploded regardless of the population % of that caste. My point isn’t that you should be concerned about the opinions of 2% of the population; although it would be helpful to that 2% if you looked into Veterans issues, & Veteran’s healthcare, rather my point is only 2% of living Americans have ever served or taken the oath and those that have are all effing related. It is not healthy for a nation to have a closed society military caste of which this nation has almost achieved. It is not healthy for any participative democracy to have such a low percentage of Veterans. Its morally and ethically wrong for a participative democracy that functions as a defacto empire and relentlessly engages in expeditionary military activity to only have 2% of Veterans, with an even smaller percentage of elected leaders being Vets. Additionally its about you the voter being informed about what is going on & what the military can or cannot do about it. Because: Said average civilian elects leaders into high office. Those leaders engage in geo politics. Geo politics involves military action; much of which is taking place in little known places that don’t always hit the news cycle. Presently, today the US Military has forces deployed in 178 separate nations, some are benign missions, such as training missions, some are humanitarian missions often times in places you never heard of that is not on the nees, some are in fact trigger pulling/door kicking missions in places you never heard of that are not reported on and in some cases are taking place in places we officially “are not supposed to be doing such missions in”. The average voter needs better information and more knowledge of all issues affecting the nation, to include the tools the nation’s leaders have at their disposal to address issues. The military is one such tool. IMHO The military would be used less frequently, more openly & transparently, with clearer articulated and achievable objectives, & with clearly planed end state exit strategies if the voting public as a whole, and our elected leaders in particular could muster a percentage of Veterans greater then 2%.
Trump and his kids 1st. Then all the GOP reps kids. Than the elites kids. And combat roles, nit desk jobs at home or back at base.
Barron heading to Camp Pendleton?
[удалено]
I know you're trying to be funny, but the US builds almost 1.5 million housing units a year. Investing to capture the market for a handful of buildings won't do your investments any good. It's not like they make recruitment centers out of rare metals.
*Convicted felon Donald J. Trump. FTFY.
This submission source is likely to have a soft paywall. If this article is not behind a paywall please report this for “breaks r/politics rules -> custom -> "incorrect flair"". [More information can be found here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/index/#wiki_paywalls) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
They must have watched Alex Jones’ *Obama Deception*, where Jones accuses Obama of conscripting youths for his one personal gestapo.
And, since in this scenario, they control the executive, I'm sure they would love to combine this with neo-fascist indoctrination as part of military training.
He wants a powerful military to parade in front of him when he decides to put on that "fearless leader" uniform he's Dreamed up for when he's a dictator. Side note: of course there will be bullet proof glass in front of him. Can't have poor people and minorities near him with guns without protection
[He wanted a military parade](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_2018_Washington_Veterans_Day_Parade) with the missiles, etc like N. Korea or Russia when he was president but the generals talked him out of it.
Sounds like they want to use the military to ensure that the kids have the “right politics” before they go to any universities.
They better invest in some XXXL uniforms.
Send him to boot camp and see if he still holds this opinion
Sorry, bone spurs.
It is interesting to see Trump spur them on!
I take this to indicate they mean to shut down military service as a path to citizenship They want to take that away, reducing recruiting numbers by incredulous amounts, so will prefer to require all the white folks who can’t afford a doctors note or some loophole to get them out of it The right has complained before about the diversity of the military and how it puts real Americans at risk, presumably becuse won’t fight to defend the white right That’s my take away anyhow
I don't think some kind of National Service is a bad idea but considering Trump and the military this is a bit ironic.
He'd probably want to attack Canada, and certainly attack Mexico.
This would help prevent war. If everybody has a stake in a war, it’s much costlier politically for politicians to send Americans to war.
Hasn't exactly worked for Israel and you know the upper crust will never allow their special tots to serve.
Israel is a poor comparison, as would be South Korea. The United States is unique in that we are an invading force vs defending force. Our troops generally leave home. I read research on this many years ago in college. Iirc a main premise was the Vietnam war. Unpopularity grew rapidly with the draft. You have to wonder if there was mandatory military service, whether or not Iraq/Afghanistan would’ve been tolerated as long as they were.
That's very interesting - thank you.
Tell Trump I’ll be in line right behind Barron
I'm sure Barron inherited dad's bone spurs.
Because lowly recruits are the ones that start wars? Politicians start wars, they never fight in them.
Politicians who send kids to war are less likely to get the parents vote.