Mandatory national service = citizenship? Your thoughts?

[mckitterick]

Re: this:
http://www.congress.org/congressorg/issues/alert/?alertid=5834001&content_dir=ua_congressorg

and this:
http://snopes.com/politics/military/draft.asp

Y'know, I would have no problem with requiring two years of national service right after high school of anyone who wishes to be an American citizen. Remember Heinlein? Sorta like that. But I disagree with Heinlein and others that it must be military service. In fact, that would counter the notion that this is good for America, because people would be force to do something they might be morally opposed to and cause protests.

However, most people (yes, most) right outta high school (or new to the country and seeking citizenship) ought to spend some time doing good for their country. Two years of paid volunteerism, seeing how the bottom half lives while becoming part of the country and learning who they are: That seems like a good idea.

If this resolution spelled out that the individual could pick their path (community projects, working with the homeless, cleaning up industrial spills, you name it), then I would support it! Honestly, how many kids are ready for college at 17 or 18? But I, for one, would have fought being forced into the military; heck, I would have bitched about having to do other service, but then kids of that age bitch just on principle.

How about you? Would you support mandatory national service where the hopeful citizen would be able to choose their path? A true rite of passage to citizenship. I predict it would increase the percentage of voters, too.

Chris

Comments

[geekmom.livejournal.com]

A lot of countries require this. I know the deal in Germany is that you can pick either a year of military or a year and a half of community service. You do get paid for either path.

I guess the disadvantage is that people feel an all voluntary military has better morale and is more reliable in combat, since all participants signed up to go. I don't know.

The other problem with a lot of these systems is that they're sexist. Germany, as with almost all of them, only applies to men. Of course, the current US draft system is also sexist.

I think some sort of structured year of service away from the parents would do most people some good, and it probably would improve freshman grades in college. I'd just like to see it be something other than a year of military service. I suppose it would make a lot of people think twice about sending their children off to war, though...

[mckitterick.livejournal.com]

I agree that voluntary military service is a must, that's why My Platform >g< only requires that anyone who wishes to have full citizenship (that is, the right to vote) must serve their country for two years (not one, that's a waste of training) in a significant way of their choosing, assuming there's a big list of choices. One of which would be military, of course, which would then maintain the military forces of our country. I mean, people pick that now.

Everybody has to go to work at some point, so why not make it something good for everyone? I know it would have done me good. And yes, if a significant number of them selected military service, I'd bet a lot fewer parents would be gung-ho for wars.

Chris

[geekmom.livejournal.com]

A year isn't necessarily a waste of training. In the event of a reinstituted draft, most of the population would still have some military training, so mobilization would be quicker with less training time required.

In the US - I have a feeling that there'd just be fewer eligible voters. Probably pretty close to the same amount of votes. Voting isn't a terribly effective carrot for young people. "It's the law, and you can't go to college or hold a job unless you do it." That would probably be more effective.