Thoughts on Military Conscription - Long Post

[Ball N' Chain]

Alright guys,
For starters, I ask that I receive no hate in this thread, rather your own opinionated responses supporting your perspective. In college I got into heated debates about this a lot, granted none of these debates went anywhere productive because they usually occurred at two in the morning with some type of substance in effecting cognition, or in a class with one mainstream hippie type people who cannot see an outside opinion as anything other than preposterous.

I would like to hear your thoughts on Military Conscription, or Mandatory Military Service. Yes or no? Why, or why not? What do you think the pros and cons are... Anything really.

For me, I go have spent the last 3 years at Florida Gulf Coast University, a college in sunny South West Florida in a city that is in a bubble from anything bad. Literally, there is a 60 percent less crime in Estero per 100k people than in the Entire state of Florida per 100k people. With that said, I have been exposed daily to entitled, selfish, and wholly oblivious young adults who care more about spending there excess college funs on trips to music festivals rather than do anything about the immense amount of problems there are.

While I have my fun in college, I work closely with a group called Honor Flight, which is revolved around WWII and Korean war vets at this point in time.
I am often sickened by the lack of respect for both America and Veterans kids in my classes have, as open discussions in any Humanity class turns into a bash Trump and America is going to hell riot. (I might be the only conservative in these classes so I get attacked frequently.)

I feel as if Military Conscription would do great to teach my peers to have a little respect in regards to America, and to appreciate the life that we get to live. Obviously there are loops to jump through, such as whether or not women should be involved, as well as people who are not able bodied and so forth.

The way I see it, women should be involved and physically screened to see what they're capable of, as well as all men who are able bodied. Fitness standards should be mandatory, and if you go in obese then you spend your time working as well as reaching for fitness standards. (this would help with obesity in America)

All in all, I believe Military Conscription would promote unity between the American people, decrease unemployment by supplying good fundamentals such as discipline, respect, stress management, and others, as well as provide basic skills in things like basic survival, weaponry, some hand to hand combat aspects, and so forth depending on the job assigned. All people, whether a lower class civilian or celebrity will be part of this, and the most important benefit I also think would be instilled is a higher interest in National Security matters, considering everyone can, will, or has been called in for service, people will want to know and understand what is going on, rather than just sweep it under the rug and focus on bullshit.

To sum it up, I think its time America comes together and supports one another. While Military Conscription in America will never happen due to it going against basic rights such as free will, I truly believe that after the rough patch and uproar, it would be good for our citizens and society. Multiple generations from now, we would be a stronger America because of it, with greater appreciation of the simple things in life. Thats just my thoughts though, what are yours?

 

[SpitfireV]

It's two generations after your last batch of conscription. Has it made your country stronger? I ask sincerely with your last paragraph in mind.

 

[Ball N' Chain]

It's two generations after your last batch of conscription. Has it made your country stronger? I ask sincerely with your last paragraph in mind.

I cannot speak(or type) with direct knowledge in regard to previous drafts in America, but from what I have learned in my US History classes, much outcry from the drafts involving the war in Vietnam surrounded the beliefs that the drafts were unfair, and not random as legislation led many to believe. Also from what I was taught in classes, drafts seemed to target lower class men, and it only accounted for 1/3 of our Military due to immense amounts of voluntary service.

I do believe there would be a major difference in mandatory service throughout the entire population compared to drafts that select just certain demographics based on location and age. I have two friends who I respect and go to college with who carry duel citizenships, and one form Turkey and one from South Korea. Both were called back to their country to give their service, and both had the chance to deny service but never return to their country, and stay in America. Both of them gave their service and from what information they have given me, said it gave them a great sense of pride in both themselves and their country.

Hindsight is 20/20, and I believe with a little customization, and taking small steps at a time, we could have a good system.

 

[Ball N' Chain]

It's two generations after your last batch of conscription. Has it made your country stronger? I ask sincerely with your last paragraph in mind.

To answer the question directly, I do not know. The Vietnam veterans I have met through Honor Flight have never disclosed whether they were drafted or not, nor ever said anything bad about America or our Military, and I have not lived long enough to see any effects from any of the drafts that occurred in the United States.

 

[TLDR20]

I think national service would be a good thing. It doesn't have to be military though.

 

[Teufel]

I would not want to work with people who don't want to serve. I have seen enough service members who don't do much rowing in the all volunteer force to envision how much fun the long boat would be with draftees.

Now if we go to war with a near peer state adversary? Sure but that's a different story.

 

[Red Flag 1]

I

 

[Il Duce]

Andrew Bacevich has written about how he thinks the draft is the only way the United States can win wars. For him, it's not an argument about the skill of the armed forces - it's about how the political process facilitates war being waged. He believes, and makes a strong argument, the only way to ensure national interest, political will, and national commitment are aligned sufficiently to fight and win wars is through the political realities a universal draft demands of a democratic government.

I believe the Havok Journal has at least one interview with him on the topic if you google it.

 

[Ball N' Chain]

I would not want to work with people who don't want to serve. I have seen enough service members who don't do much rowing in the all volunteer force to envision how much fun the long boat would be with draftees.

Now if we go to war with a near peer state adversary? Sure but that's a different story.

I wholly agree with that statement, but I feel as if that is a problem that can be fixed. How? I can come up with ten solutions to fix that problem, but then I am sure there would be double the flaws with my solutions.
I can see myself writing more out of frustration with my peers than with clear, cognitive thought. I am just sickened seeing American flags burned, and listening to ignorance spew from my peers mouths' when they bash America, their own country. The first thought in mind is having them do what is done to keep our country safe, free, and at liberty from the evils around the world. Give them a first person perspective of what goes on in other countries compared to here.

 

[Marauder06]

Yes to a draft in wartime. We should have one now. No to mandatory military service during peace time. Too expensive and not necessary. I think some type of highly-incentivized national service opportunity would be a good idea, along the lines of the Aspen Institute's "service year" plan.

 

[Marauder06]

Andrew Bacevich has written about how he thinks the draft is the only way the United States can win wars. For him, it's not an argument about the skill of the armed forces - it's about how the political process facilitates war being waged. He believes, and makes a strong argument, the only way to ensure national interest, political will, and national commitment are aligned sufficiently to fight and win wars is through the political realities a universal draft demands of a democratic government.

I believe the Havok Journal has at least one interview with him on the topic if you google it.

I interviewed Bacevich for a journal article while I was in grad school and he said exactly what you outlined above. My discussion with him, along with further research and reflection, changed my opinion on the utility and necessity of a draft... and a war tax... and a formal declaration of war. If we had a draft, we wouldn't be in Year 16+ of the GWOT. One way or another it would be over by now.

 

[carlo amedio]

Well I think I can spare you my opinion on the morality and logistics of it all since I have never served and your probably here to hear the thoughts of those who have, but I have a suggestion:

If the goal is increasing levels of patriotism rather than getting more bodies in the military, why is the military the only solution, why not just have a class about patriotism? stick it right into high school, just like health class and make it elective so we don't pull a 1984 here, I can even tell you where to best put it, health is a semester long, then students take CCG wich is IMO just filler, replace the CCG class with nationalism class (better name to be determined later). The course work can be how to treat the American flag and some basic American history, highlighting the best and most important parts so we don't have to see any more embarrassing videos making fun of Americans for not knowing shit about America ETC... just giving kids their freedom vaccine (the better name has been determined) before they go out into the world.
I mean the only country I can think of doing what you're suggesting is Israel, and that's for a different reason, courses that teach nationalism would be cheaper and there are far fewer moral and logistical concerns. Just my 2 cents, worth what you paid for it.

 

[AWP]

If the goal is increasing levels of patriotism rather than getting more bodies in the military, why is the military the only solution, why not just have a class about patriotism?

1. Where was that goal suggested?
2. You just described indoctrination, a favorite of Communists and fascists everywhere.

 

[carlo amedio]

1. Where was that goal suggested?
2. You just described indoctrination, a favorite of Communists and fascists everywhere.

1. I assumed that was the problem he was trying to address when every complaint he had about his peers stemmed from a lack of patriotism on their part, maybe I was mistaken, hopefully, he or you can clarify if I am

2. I understand this concern wich is why I suggested that the class would not be mandatory. There is also a massive gray area between teaching and indoctrinating. "Teaching is all about communication of information, ideas or skills that can be questioned or discussed and the facts that are taught in teaching are supported by evidence, whereas indoctrination is about communication of beliefs that are not supported by any evidence and the receiver is supposed to accept it the way it has been taught without any argument or questioning." Difference between Teaching and Indoctrination | Teaching vs Indoctrination I think this is a good write-up on the topic.

To label this indoctrination right off the bat is jumping the gun IMO, then invoking communism and fascism is even further a reach. I believe that one important thing to make clear is that one should never be loyal to the government, but rather both should be loyal to the country. That is patriotism.

So is this indoctrination? That depends on how the class is structured, as it does with every other class, one noteworthy difference being this class would not be mandatory. There would of course be examples of individual classes practicing indoctrination due to failure on the instructor's part, but far more egregious examples of this already exist and despite our best efforts always will so long as teaching is done by people, that is not a systemic flaw it is an individual one.

 

[Ball N' Chain]

@TLDR20 I agree, there can be alternatives.

@Marauder06 In the War we are in now, what good what a draft do? I asked with genuine curiosity. It seems as though Commando Units taking out high profile members of terror groups like ISIS. A draft is not likely to bring in a bunch of guys who have the physical and mental fortitude of being a Spec Ops service member in any branch. Would a draft also call for a different approach to the war?

 

[Ball N' Chain]

1. I assumed that was the problem he was trying to address when every complaint he had about his peers stemmed from a lack of patriotism on their part, maybe I was mistaken, hopefully, he or you can clarify if I am

Yes, I was definitely complaining about my peers, but the basis of my post was to gather opinions on Military Conscription in the United States. I welcome your opinion on that.

 

[AWP]

To label this indoctrination right off the bat is jumping the gun IMO, then invoking communism and fascism is even further a reach. I believe that one important thing to make clear is that one should never be loyal to the government, but rather both should be loyal to the country. That is patriotism.

So is this indoctrination? That depends on how the class is structured, as it does with every other class, one noteworthy difference being this class would not be mandatory. There would of course be examples of individual classes practicing indoctrination due to failure on the instructor's part, but far more egregious examples of this already exist and despite our best efforts always will so long as teaching is done by people, that is not a systemic flaw it is an individual one.

I reject that 100%. If you think the masses will differentiate between the two you are very naïve. "Teaching" is used as the standard in authoritarian regimes (if you prefer that term though Communists and fascists are arguably the greatest offenders in the last century) while the term "indoctrination" is avoided altogether. Structuring the class, materials....none of that matters because the only ones using the qualifier of "teaching" will be those forcing the courses down our throats.

Your argument holds zero water against the canvas of history.

 

[carlo amedio]

I reject that 100%. If you think the masses will differentiate between the two you are very naïve. "Teaching" is used as the standard in authoritarian regimes (if you prefer that term though Communists and fascists are arguably the greatest offenders in the last century) while the term "indoctrination" is avoided altogether. Structuring the class, materials....none of that matters because the only ones using the qualifier of "teaching" will be those forcing the courses down our throats.

Your argument holds zero water against the canvas of history.

let me ask you something, is our current public school system teaching or indoctrinating? Is it possible to have an education system that teaches rather than indoctrinates? I'm having a little trouble understanding your argument, it seems to be that if we put into place my suggestion we will have an authoritarian school system forcing beliefs down students throats to control them. I'd like to know if that is accurate so that I don't waste time
responding to arguments you never made.

 

[carlo amedio]

Yes, I was definitely complaining about my peers, but the basis of my post was to gather opinions on Military Conscription in the United States. I welcome your opinion on that.

Well, it seems I misinterpreted you, I still believe what I said and I think my proposition would be more effective in every way, except of course strengthening the military(arguably). Honestly, I think a draft is only morally acceptable under dire circumstances, let alone mandatory service.

we would be a stronger America because of it, with greater appreciation of the simple things in life. Thats just my thoughts

Another reason I assumed you suggested this for the purpose of increasing patriotism was because it doesn't seem to make sense to have that system if it's not necessary and you don't want to increase patriotism. forcing someone to serve for attitude adjustment seems not only like a convoluted and ineffective method but also an immoral one.

 

[AWP]

let me ask you something, is our current public school system teaching or indoctrinating? Is it possible to have an education system that teaches rather than indoctrinates? I'm having a little trouble understanding your argument, it seems to be that if we put into place my suggestion we will have an authoritarian school system forcing beliefs down students throats to control them. I'd like to know if that is accurate so that I don't waste time
responding to arguments you never made.

Teaching. You may have your one off instances, but these aren't gov't imposed and sponsored messages about patriotism. "How to be a Patriot" is straight out the most oppressive dictatorships in history. Again, look at history for examples.

Yes, I believe your understanding of my argument is accurate. Revisit history again, and if you don't have a grasp on my examples then please take a look at them. When a gov't forces a belief system on its citizens or HOW and WHAT to think about the gov't, that becomes indoctrination. Calling the class "Nationalism" is also very indicative of a fascist/ Communist model. I know that is not your desired end state, rather a name for lack of a better offer, but look at your examples for the class: Patriotism and Nationalism. Classes teaching that are indoctrination and history/ human nature support this. I think you're operating under a perfect world hypothetical, not thousands of years' of history.

Communist countries: USSR, China, Vietnam, Laos, Burma, and Cuba all had "re-education" classes once they were in power. Anyone who opposed the gov't or didn't follow the party line? Imprisoned or executed. Sure, in America we wouldn't do that, but make that argument to your fellow citizens and see how it pans out.

Fascist countries: Germany, Italy, and Japan during WWII had gov't sponsored programs in place. The gov't told you what to think about it and cloaked some of your arguments and nationalism into being proud of your country.

Medieval Europe, Muslim nations, Czarist Russia among others: I don't recall "classes" per se, but if you spoke out against the gov't (typically a king) you were told what to think and how to behave or you went to a very nasty prison cell.

Nations don't like dissent and the less democratic the less a nation will tolerate. That being said you have the formal education programs listed before or codified and gov't enforced ways of correcting your behavior on the street. In every instance this was clothed in being proud of your country and/or leadership.

Have you taken a civics class? It should (it did for me 25 years ago in Jr. High) present things like how to treat the flag, but it also taught (primarily) how our gov't works and why. History is a required class but "highlighting the best and most important parts" isn't teaching. When you pick and choose the topics while ignoring their counterpoints or context you've selectively presented information to meet a desired end state. That's indoctrination.