Should we raise the military enlistment age ????

Timber- I think that your use of the word "compulsory" kinda threw me. Last time that I looked, the word meant that you had to do something.

In the mennonite community where I grew up, each young person, on reaching 15 years, would have to mow the front lawn holding up the rear legs of a sheep. It took one year and served as both rite of passage and contribution to community upkeep.

Now, even given the sociologic significance of a long-standing ritual, I think I'd side with the sheep on that one, bernie ... a general anti-animal cruelty thing, you know. Of course, if it could be shown to somehow be of actual benefit to the sheep, I'd prolly hafta re-think.

Bleeding hearts! I've no use for your type.

Hell, don't take me but a couple of minutes.

As Roger knows, I've said this before: if this country is to maintain a standing military force, I firmly believe in re-instituting the draft. If we must have an army (I use the word in its generic sense, not meaning to exclude Navy, Marines, AF etc,) then it is the responsibility of all able-bodied citizens to partake in staffing that force. I neither like nor trust an all-volunteer professional army; in the long run, such a "mercenary" force tends to be far more loyal to its commanders than to the Republic itself.

I like your core idea, Timber.

Maybe we shouldn't maintain a standing army then. Our forefathers didn't want one.

Please provide any evidence for that.
I have NEVER seen or read anything that makes this claim or backs it up.

I'm gonna have to agree with Phoenix on the compulsory service issue. I've heard the idea before and it sounds good, but it seems a little Third Reichish to me.

Well, John, I think the difference lies in that if one chose to opt out, could could opt out, though, as ever, with choices come consequences. In this instance the consequence of opting out would be no more than forgoing the enhanced benefits accruing to fully obligation-satisfied citizenship. I think one wishing a voice in the conduct of a polity should undertake ALL the individual burdens of maintaining that polity. Among those burdens is doing one's part to ensure the benefits of that polity beprovided and maintained. I ain't real big on the free-ride concept of national administration. You wanna vote, earn it. You want welfare, earn it. You want enhanced rights and privileges, earn 'em. You wanna take part in the polity and its perquisites, take part in it and enjoy them ... you've earned them byu your participation. Your choice; you wanna play, you gotta pay. Anybody who wants to just sit and watch is perfectly welcome to do so for free, but all they get to do is sit and watch. Its a reciprocity thing; you work for the sustem and the system works for you. Your call.

I also generally like Timber's idea, with a few modifications.

1. Everyone is exempt from service until they have completed secondary school, or turned 18. Upon leaving secondary school, every young person who is physically fit can choose to serve in the military or public service until the age of 23. If the young person chooses not to serve, they forfeit their right to vote, or receive any personal government benefits (basically loss of citizenship). If opting for the military, the individual may choose branch and request consideration for specialties within branch. The National Service/Military options apply to every individual, without exception. Neither sex/sexual orientation, race, or socio-economic background will excuse service. Live in the United States, and you are required to serve in some productive fashion before receiving the benefits of citizenship.

2. Individuals who are later rated unsuitable for to serve in their Service choice will be transferred to alternative service. Failure to succeed in any service option results in discharge from obligation and loss of voting and government benefits for life. If an individual loses citizenship rights by not having served in either the Military or National Service, they may regain those rights after 30 years if they have a clean criminal record and demonstrated that they have become a productive member of society.

3. Young people entering National Service will be provided with schooling, including college, if they score high enough on standard testing. Time spent in individual schooling/college does not count toward fulfilling obligations. For instance, an individual receiving a four year college education, will serve until age 27. The consequence of failing to successfully complete government paid education/training, returns the individual to their regular Service obligation. Fail in the fourth year of education, and one still serves until age 27. Appropriate schooling may lead to a regular commission in the individual's Service.

For most of human history birth within the State and military service were the sine-qua-non of citizenship. This proposal returns to those fundamentals, adjusted to meet the circumstances found in the United States of the 21st century.

1. This scheme would provide an opportunity for all of our youth to acquire the appropriate higher education/training needed to fully develope their individual potential. Society benefits by increasing the number of well-educated and skilled citizens to power our system.

2. Society benefits by giving youth something productive to do. Criminal activity and illegitimate birth are destructive of both the individual and a drag on society. Individuals are most likely to fall into these wasteful life-styles between the ages of 16-23. Military and National Service would keep these young people "busy" while teaching them the rewards of self-discipline and responsibility. Reduce the pool of potential criminals and young women trapped into hopeless lives, and the costs of crime and social welfare should drop rather dramatically.

3. A low-paid pool of labor would insure that many socially beneficial projects could be carried out. The military would never be short of promising recruits to fill its needs, and it would have them during the period in young people's lives when they are most fit for Service. The military will always need infantry, squids who can keep a ship's decks clean of rust, and those who provide the infrastructure necessary to keep the claws and teeth sharp and deadly. This is a far better scheme, in my opinion, than any "compulsory draft".

4. Having "paid the price" for citizenship, our people will cherish it the more. Virtually the whole of the population will have served the nation, and in doing so will take greater pride in it. Having a first hand understanding of the complexities and difficulties that face the nation, both socially and militarily, the People will be better prepared to exercise their rights/privileges as citizens. We might expect more and better informed participation in civic decision-making, which would strengthen our nation.

Some good ideas there, Asherman. I particularly like the part about enhancing the National Service option with educational benefits - a very good idea, IMO. I think perhaps tax advantages ought to accrue to fully qualified and compliant individuals as well - do more, get more, pay less. Seems only fair to me.

Of course, first we'd have to get rid of all the Democrats :wink:

I cannot but disagree with the right to choose one's branch of service. I believe experience shows that this would be abused in the attempt to avoid going in harm's way. If it were truly national service, one ought to be obliged to actually serve the nation by providing their genuine wants . . .

That's why your sheep ran away with your coon.

For most of American history, the People have been reluctant to maintain a standing army. The idea that volunteer militia could effectively rise up and defeat a professional army was held by many of the nation's founders. It was decisively dis-proven during the War for American Independence. The militia was no match for the British and their mercenary German troops. Only after Washington formed and trained regular troops could the Patriotic Cause be effectively fought on the battlefield. After the Revolution, the military was cut to the bone, and the nation looked as if it would founder.

The Federalists recognized the need for a professional military and provided for it in the Constitution. Things improved under the Federalists and the guidance of Washington. Jefferson, who never was comfortable with the idea of a strong central government, did his best to dismantle the military. The Navy was reduced to ineffective gunboats not even capable of defending our shores, let alone protect our merchant fleet on the high seas. Both the British and French walked all over us diplomatically, and eventually the War-Hawks got us into the War of 1812. Our military wasn't even capable of defending the National Capitol. After the War of 1812 no one seriously suggested scrapping the military, but it was cut to the bone.

The Mexican War was mostly fought by a small American military against a huge Mexican "professional" army. Only the incompetence of the Mexicans and the flaws in their military system made an American victory possible. The U.S. Army shrank again and was hard pressed to provide security on our Western frontiers.

At the outbreak of the Civil War, both armies were almost entirely made up of volunteer regiments with short enlistments led by a mixture of political appointments and a small cadre of Military School graduates. The Late Unpleasantness was only resolved after soldiers and officers of both sides became "professional". After the War, the U.S. military was again reduced to almost nothing. A small professional U.S. Army was always stretched during the Indian Wars to its limits. From the end of the Civil War until our entry into WWI, the U.S. maintained one of the World's smallest military establishments.

The Spanish-American War again demonstrated the foolishness of depending upon voluntary militia regiments during times of crisis. Again, only the incompetence and internal weaknesses of our opponents made victory possible. When WWI broke out the U.S. Army was forced into compulsory military service, and it took almost until the end of WWI for the U.S. to field a fully effective military force. U.S. military aircraft were so inferior that most of our airmen flew British or French warplanes. After the eleventh hour, on the eleventh day of the eleventh month, we disbanded our military almost overnight.

While Germany rearmed and began to threaten Europe, Americans insisted on taking a non-threatening stance and neutrality. Our basic response to Japanese expansion was harsh words, permission of some American fliers to resign and form the AFG, and sale of scrap iron and steel to Japanese war industries. "Peace at any Price" was the overwhelming sentiment of most Americans, and the Left-wing/Socialists and Communists were extremely active in promoting neutrality. Patton and Eisenhower learned the essentials of armored warfare in equipment that was obsolete at the end of WWI and in automobiles masquerading as tanks. When the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor fifty-five years ago, the nation was almost completely unprepared for war. We sustained major setbacks in all theaters between 1941 and 1943. As the war progressed, we trained and equipped a professional military in the safety provided by the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. After defeating the Axis Powers, we again reduced the military to a skeleton force, only to be "surprised" by the problems our unprepared military faced when the DPRK invaded ROK, less than ten years after WWII had ended.

The oceans haven't provided us with the margins necessary to go from unprepared to effective military force for over fifty years! We can not afford to be unshielded against a world that would be quite happy to see the United States unable to effectively project its military power across the globe. Like it or not, only the U.S. Military stands between our way of life and the hope for a stable and peaceful world, and those who would reduce us to slavery.

Hoorah, for those fine young people who have stepped up and volunteered to serve our nation in uniform. They are today the best trained, best equipped military force that has ever existed in human history. That does not mean that they, and we, are invulnerable. War, of any sort, always is filled with mistakes, destruction, maiming and loss of life. Modern warfare inescapably hard on innocent civilians, but our forces work very hard to perform their dangerous tasks in compliance with the highest regard for the "rules of war". Our current enemy does not. Though willing to die, they are cowards and murderers. They hide behind children and send young idealists out with bombs to kill their own people. They hate the ideas and values of the Western world, and those within the Islamic world who have adopted humanistic policies to improve the lives of others. These are scum who take the field without regard for any rules of behavior. We should never retreat, or reduce our military pressure on them, until they are decisively defeated, even if it should take a hundred years and as many lives as were taken in fighting the Axis and the Soviets.

That was very well said Asherman but I'm not sure that our military is the only thing standing between us and slavery. I can't foresee anyone attempting to invade us if we cut our miltary down in peacetime. I think it's safe to say that every war in the last 50 years that we've been involved in were not vital to our survival as a nation.

PS- 30 years to regain rights???? That's a little drastic, don't ya think??

Lotta opinions on what "young people" ought to do to earn their citizenship. Any opinions on what should be required of older folks to maintain their citizenship?

Stop driving!!!

Please provide any evidence for that.
I have NEVER seen or read anything that makes this claim or backs it up.[/quote]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/725276/posts

http://www.sightm1911.com/lib/rkba/ff_militia.htm

"As the greatest danger to liberty is from large standing armies, it is best to prevent them by an effectual provision for a good militia."-James Madison

John,

There can be little doubt that if the Axis Powers had defeated the Allies in WWII, the United States would have been eventually enslaved. Without the U.S. in the equation, it is probable that neither the Soviets, nor the British could have defeated the Nazis.

A Soviet victory in the Cold War would also have resulted in the loss of our own freedom and the hope for freedom elsewhere in the world. The Soviet's were forced to compete with the West on an economic basis (our strongest suite against their weakest), and through client-States (DPRK, Cuba, North Vietnam, the emerging colonial states of Africa, and the Arabic movement to annihilate Israel) because of their rightful fear of the consequences of directly engaging the United States militarily. The "Balance of Terror" would not have been a balance at all if the United States had not held such awesome military power.

Our national survival, and the survival of humanistic values, were at stake in both of these major military confrontations during the last century.

If extremist Islamic radicals are victorious, it is clear that only their own value-system will be allowed to exist. They despise not only the United States, but all Western values. No one would be permitted to hold any religious beliefs contrary to their own interpretation of the Koran. Public and private behavior would have to conform to their narrow vision of what the Prophet might have decreed. Films, and all written publications would be censored to reflect only "proper" views. What sort of world would exist under the rule of people like Bin Laden, or Al-Zarqawi? There is nothing that we in the West could do, or cease doing, to stop their hatred of us ... short of complete surrender to their ideology. Any indication that they are "winning" is sufficient to cause an increase in their attacks against the world of the infidel, anyone who disagrees with them.

It is our military effectiveness that makes them pay hundreds of their most dedicated fanatics for one of our soldiers. It is their inability to engage us directly that leads them to attack those they believe should be their natural allies. So long as they must expend their greatest efforts not to lose Iraq on the ground, they are hampered in their attacks against the peaceful peoples of America and Europe. Every terrorist killed in Iraq or Afghanistan is one less who will murder children somewhere else. They are truly small in numbers and weak, though they would have us believe otherwise. They are ultimately fighting for a cause that they will lose, because most people everywhere in the world find their values repugnant.

No, I don't think that loss of one's citizenship rights for 30 years is too extreme a cost for those who choose not to serve, or those who fail to conform to the same obligations expected of all citizens. Those who opt out of the system at 18-23 should be faced with very serious consequences to help motivate them to serve faithfully and well. Loss of the right to vote and receive the benefits of citizenship aren't, and would not be evident with only a brief exclusion from national life. By the time 30 years will have passed, the rebelliousness of youth will have subsided, People between the ages of 48-53, will either have reformed themselves, or clearly still be unworthy of full citizenship. Why should those who opt out of their obligation to the nation get a "free-ride" on the backs of those who do serve? Thirty years of second-class citizenship is actually a rather liberal approach for those who choose not to serve along side of all their peers.

You also ask, what should be required of older folks to maintain their citizenship. Once individuals have done their service, they have paid the price for their citizenship and all its privileges. If the nation requires, they would form a very large reserve force that might be brought to military effectiveness relatively fast, and that helps project the sort of strength that must discourage any attacks upon us. Providing aid and comfort to our enemies during times of armed conflict might be cause for temporary loss of full citizenship rights and privileges, though freedom of expression should only be abridged as in extreme cases.