Obligated military service versus the all volunteer force

[naudiz]

Thank you, Cyan.

For just having a nifty opinion of us folks that have to express our vast array of talents in other ways.

I do run into some people who have an ignorant view of people who may not be as physically capable as they are. Sure, it bugs me, but I feel pretty blessed that they are the exception to the rule. I just got back from a convention over the weekend that was packed with people, and the schedule was a nightmare for someone who requires breaks, extra time to move from point A to point B and so forth. But you know what? Everyone I met at the con went above and beyond the call of decency to accomodate me, and there wasn't a single dirty look or a grumble among them. Their positive attitude and willingness to assist enabled me to do the things I'd come there to do, so that I in turn was able to contribute to their good time. Hell, I ended up staying an extra day just to hang out with all the great people I'd met. What comes around goes around.

I don't feel cheated that I can't serve in the military. I realize that when it comes to the security of a nation, physical response time can mean life or death to people relying on you. I wouldn't want to be put in a position where my need to be accomodated costs someone his or her life. And I don't begrudge the fact that military people get paid and volunteers get zip. The risks are considerably higher for our soldiers - I don't think they're getting compensated enough, frankly.

I'm not sure if it's human nature to fear and revile that which is different. I know it's animal nature, and we are animals by virtue of biology, but I think it is uniquely human to have the capacity to rise above that and show compassion and understanding. Not all humans choose to do so; they're either too self absorbed or scared that if they go out on a limb they might get hurt, and I feel sorry for those types. It really is their loss, because not only is their world so terribly small, but they're missing out on the kinds of rewards that don't carry a price tag.

Like, for example, the benefit of knowing *ME*.

But on mandatory military service: still against the idea in practice, but in theory would love to see some program instituted where high school kids got at least a sampling of life in the real world before being hurled into it unprepared.

 

[Skibum]

Why do people want to serve "mankind" rather than their own counrty? What has the rest of "mankind" done for you? I believe that everyone has a special obligation to thier own country, wheather it is the US, Canada, Germany, or East Overshoe. There is an obligation, and if your counrty defines that obligation as military service to defend the country, it is justified.

 

[CelestialBody]

 

[Lasher]

Celestial Body, this isn't meant to be mean or anything (honest! (shut up, people. I'm not like that anymore!!)), but I've been noticing a trend here. You seem to be fairly well read, more than willing to quote your favorites on any particular subject... But do you have any personal life experiences you can draw on to round out your thinking?

I know I've used this particular example before, but each time I see someone like this I'm drawn back to it... Remember the scene in "Good Will Hunting" when Matt Damon and Robin Williams are sitting by the pond and Robin Williams gives him the "Yeh, you're a fucking genius, but you don't know shit" speech? I just hope you keep that in mind. You can uncover an awful lot from books that can help you formulate thoughts and ideas, but at some point you have to come out from behind that and learn to experience things on your own.

It's a pretty common trap that college students fall into, thinking the world can be experienced and explained thru the words of the so-called greats. But it's just not true. The great thinkers of the past can help you get to a point, but sooner or later you've got open up and learn to be yourself.

People like Rousseau had important things to say, but if I wanted to know what it was I could look it up myself. I think we'd all be more interested in hearing what you have to say.

I know, I know, this is going to come across as me being a dick and blah, blah, blah... I've heard it all before. But that's really not how it's intended.

 

[naudiz]

What has the rest of mankind done for me?

Civilization.
Written language.
Agriculture.
Electricity.
Houses.
Literature.
Computers.
Yoda PEZ Dispensers.
Chocolate chip cookies.
Wool socks.
Music.
Coffee.
Indoor plumbing.

Not necessarily in that order.

Why does mankind have to serve me personally for me to want to help it thrive wherever it may dwell? Am I entitled to some kind of global blow job (never mind the logsitics) because I'm someone special? Not that I'd complain, but...

You know, if you're just an excellent person all around, you're contributing to your nation by virtue of the fact that there's one less putz inhabiting it. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link.

My question is: what have you done for mankind lately? But I won't ask that, because it's really none of my fucking business.

 

[CelestialBody]

 

[CelestialBody]

 

[Purple Haze]

Lasher,

Thanks for taking the time to correct my opinion for me.

After all that typing, however, you failed to express your own, or make a valid point to the subject at hand.

Maybe you could share some of your military experience with us, then we'd be assured you know what the fuck you're talking about.

I could correct your spelling, but that would be irrelevant, wouldn't it?

 

[CW]

my simple point of view,,,

No, not everyone is suited for military duty. And those that are, or are willing to give it a go, face shame, slander, snide remarks, disdain, poor pay, and terrible benefits. They are subject to the whims of a leadership in Washington D.C. that no longer has a real concept of their purpose nor the level of the individuals commitment. Until military men and women are elevated above being viewed as a fourth or fifth class citizen with inadequate pay, benefits, and respect, then we will continue to totter on the brink of an inadequate armed forces staffing level.

A mandatory service requirement is NOT the answer at all. A realistic understanding and appreciation of what an individual gives up to be in the military, and an equallly realistic compensation package is the answer.

With the understanding that some people desire to serve their country, but abhor the idea of serving in the military, or, as was pointed out earlier, are simply not physically able to serve. Then why not implement a national service program?

A program that would be somewhat similar to the old Peace Corps, with it's focus on habitat work, urban renewal, forestry and conservation, or work with the abused and battered of our society. Offer four year "enlistments" in a specified program, with screening just like the military uses now. Offer with both college credits for the knowledge learned and tution assistance for those that have some college or trade school debts to pay off.

Pay them well, teach them on a practical level, and offer more than token respect for their decision to serve,,, AND THEY WILL COME. We could soon erase the manning deficit and garner a much more stable and efficient fighting force,,, plus we'd have the added benefits of turning the tide on some major home front problems.

Yes, there is a certain cost associated with any federal level program, and this is no exception. I really believe though, that the added expenses will be more than offset by the added benefits.

And, for any of you that have made it this far, and are wondering,,, yes, I served four years in the air force at the tail end of tha Nam fiasco. I was responsible for constructing target mock ups ( based on the current hot spot action lists ) while I was stationed in the deserts of Arizona.

 

[Lasher]

Jeez, touchy PH, aren't we?

Ummm... I only typed 2 lines of that, the rest were copied and pasted from the National Archives website. If there are spelling errors, I'm sure you could take that up with them. I'm not sure what the spelling conventions were for the late 18th Century, so I can't really help ya there.

As for being on topic, YOU brought up the issue of Constitutionality of the Draft. I merely pointed out that it appears that the Draft is constitutional, and that you didn't take any time to really think about what you were saying and apparently have little knowledge of the Constitution.

Ya know, if you're gonna go off and make some half-assed comment like that, you better be able to deal with it when someone calls ya on it.

 

[Cheyenne]

But do you have any personal life experiences you can draw on to round out your thinking?

Or, as my grandfather would say, you're still wet behind the ears.

 

[naudiz]

*Squeak*

And ice cream! Which sounds really good right about now. Mmmmm, I sense frozen cookie dough in my future.

Lasher: Thanks for posting that excerpt from Ye Olde Constitution, by the way. I'm not being facetious, either. I think everyone should have a good look-see at the Constitution before invoking it, and that includes myself. Should I be mildly alarmed that the only time I ever had to read the Constitution in school was once in the fourth grade, when I couldn't possibly have understood what it meant?

 

[Purple Haze]

http://www.geocities.com/CollegePark/1801/peace2.gif I stand corrected, Lasher. I should know better than to make a mistake like that with a history major around.

I'm not touchy, just would like your opinion on the draft.

I gave my half-ass comment, let's hear yours.

 

[Closet Desire]

Turned nasty anyway didn't it?

Just woke up here in England to find a chill in the air on this thread. Still a few comments to make about volunteer service and service to mankind.

I commented about it being a disservice to halt a young person's momentum toward university. Then the comments about young people in college being a "fucking genius but not knowing shit" and it reminded me of something. Many of these people being so criticised do, in fact, contribute a public service without most of you even knowing it.

Although I live in England (an American) I think the setup is similar in the States. We provide counselling psychology services in private practice for women and in that role we also provide trainee placement for counsellors and psychologists who are nearing the end of their qualification (most have completed 5-8 years of study). Completing this placement means working several hundred hours in their primary role, under the supervision of a highly qualified psychologist, for FREE. We are a private practice which means we are expensive to most people, but the trainees who line up (we have to turn them away) for a place in our practice allow us to offer free or nearly free services to low-income clients in need. They often get the toughest cases because of the circumstances of their clients.

Doctors go through a simlilar phase of their training where they work their asses off for little or no compensation (how many people are prepared to work an 80 week for a couple of years?). How bad do you think medical services at the hospital might be if there weren't dozens of interns being exploited? Many, many people who attend college are required to go through such phases of "real-life" qualification before they can work in their profession. Many college students also work in help line and other community services for a pittance to supplement their scholarships. I got $400 a semester for working with Asian immigrants. Many of these people will continue to offer pro bono services as a percentage of their professional work because it becomes a part of their psyche...we do.

I think the thing that annoys me most is the ever present dig about "book learning" and suggesting that those who have studied the world through books (in addition to living their very real lives) have no "real life experience". It has been my experience that the ones who don't know shit are simply the ones who don't know shit. There is much wisdom in books, including Rousseau, who was a product of the Renaissance (out of which came most of the things Americans value today). In case you're not aware the ideal of the Renaissance was to become a "citizen of the world" and transcend the danger and bias of nationalism. Those who have studied end up saving a lot of time with what are many "modern" issues. Rousseau, even though he wrote in the decades before America was even a nation wrote on many of the issues that Americans face today in education, public life, human rights, religion, and so forth. Rousseau was no lightweight when it came to "real life" either. His greatest work, Emile, written in 1762 resulted in the intervention of the powers that be: the book was banned and consigned to flames, a warrant issued for his arrest, and he was obliged to flee the country...a pretty bad situation when you are fifty years old. Consider what would have happened if he had been arrested. If you want "real-life" experience I think you'll find more of it with Rousseau than you will with Robin Williams and a two hour movie.

I don't mind when someone shares the words of another because to "look something up" you need some idea of what you're looking for in the first place and why you should be looking it up.

Oh that question of my real life experience? Retired US Navy (6th fleet during Iranian hostage crisis), volunteered with VA hospital for three years while completing my "book learning" at university, three university degrees, lived all over the US, Europe, and the Middle East, married, divorced, married again, children, injuries and death, jobs, taxes, arguments, authored books, failed businesses, fired from jobs, lectured at universities, teach young children judo and creative writing. What do you have in mind when you say "real life"? Perhaps you should check out another movie...The Matrix...and ask yourself "What is real?"

The only thing worse than snobbery is inverted snobbery.

[Edited by Closet Desire on 11-07-2000 at 02:25 AM]

 

[Expertise]

I agree with Sparky.

National service in my opinion is a good idea. No it doesn't have to be military service.

A simplified argument for that is that all people are not suited nor inclined for military service. Plain and simple.

I would far rather have someone covering my ass who wanted to do the job than someone who is just there because they had to be.

Further, when the US military went to an all volunteer force the quality of their military personell improved dramaticly, even in the infantry which had traditionaly drawn the dregs (no offence, former infantry officer speaking) of the draft pool. Weapons systems and for that matter combat has changed drasticly from the days of the draft. There is very little room for an unmotivated poorly educated soldier, sailor or airman in most modern militaries. The current complexity of weapon systems and tactics make anything less than "quality" personell unworkable. An example of this is the "round out" National Guard Brigades during the Gulf War. It was assesed that they would require 18 months of intensive training to reach regular army standards.

That is not to say that most (yes a gross generalization) kids coming out of highschool could not benefit from some military "style" training and service.

What I would suggest is a two streamed approach. Optional military service or compulsory service in a National Service Corps. I envision this (for my canadian brethren) as Katimavik on steroids (sort of a homebased version of the PeaceCorp for yanks). A professional cadre of engineers managers and leaders supervising and training youth. This organization would then undertake all manner of projects in support of the public good. Habitat for Humanity type things, disaster relief etc. The organization would, in my vision, be para-military in nature and command structure and would have a term of two years.

I realize it requires fleshing out. However I believe it would be beneficial to both the participant and the nation.

[Edited by Expertise on 11-07-2000 at 06:43 AM]

 

[Sparky Kronkite]

Okay.... please listen one more time.

CB coined it: Serving one's country "is" serving humanity. It "is" education - for any person - no matter "how together or focused on their own educational track they may be."

If one does not want to serve their country, for the good of their country and humanity - they a simply being selfish - it's only two years at the most. Nothing.

As for the military "breaking down good(!)individuals," again, and I shout it out "WE AREN'T NECESSARLILY TALKING MILITARY OR WAR HERE!!!!"

Surely, every sane, physically healthy person can find some - humanitarian job - to "give back" to their country "of privilege."

Selfish, selfish, selfish!!! That's exactly what I would want to "educate out" of our youth.

Geesh! Thick - fucking thick!

 

[CW]

I agree with Sparky.

National service in my opinion is a good idea. No it doesn't have to be military service.

I agree whole heartedly

That is not to say that most (yes a gross generalization) kids coming out of highschool could not benefit from some military "style" training and service.

From what I see every day on the job sites that I visit, and at the stores where I shop,,, I no longer think that you are making a "gross" generalization at all,,, Kids with motovation and pride in their self sufficency are the exception rather than the rule.

I realize it requires fleshing out. However I believe it would be beneficial to both the participant and the nation.

Yes it would

 

[Closet Desire]

What I'm actually trying to say...

Right...no more pulling punches. If you live in America then you are living in a country that has one of the highest standards of living in the world, one of the highest productivity levels in the world, one of the highest employment rates in the world, the best medical system in the world as far as level of care, one of the highest levels of literacy, and one of the lowest tax structures in the world. Anybody tells you different isn't telling the whole truth.

I live in England and, make no mistake, I do love it here for a lot of reasons, but it has its drawbacks. For example, if I need a CAT scan it may take up to two years for me to get it. When I wanted a second telephone line added it took nearly three months for the phone system to get it right. If I want to buy a quart of milk at 2.00 am I can't. Sure I can buy most things I can buy in the US, but it's going to cost up to 50% more. My petrol costs me about $6 a gallon. Taxes swallow up twice what they do in the US. I can't travel on the trains because the whole system has been ignored for twenty years and is finally killing people through derailments. I ate Chinese last night with my wife. Nothing fancy. Cost? $66.00!

I run a business and fully two hours each day is spent following up on other businesses that haven't done what they were paid to do. I often say that these people work harder on finding a reason not to work than the job would have taken in the first place.

Ah, you say, but people get taken care of in the English system. Wrong again. I travelled to London yesterday. Homeless people? Beggers? Thieves? Violence? We've got it all and in abundance. I walked past the Admirals' Pub where just last year people were killed by a bigot's bomb. Already had several bombs this year on buildings, bridges, and even a missle attack on the MI building.

I could go on and on, but what I'm trying to say is that you have a system that works extremely well. Why do you want to mess with it? Many of the things I hear you complaining about become myths when you put them into context with other cultures and societies.

With nearly everyone in America who wants to work busy working what do you think will happen when you pull people out of the work pool (both present and future) to "serve their country"? If they are working, whether it's at Burger King (British) or behind a till at Wal Mart aren't they serving the country? paying taxes? fulfilling a role?

Step back and take a more careful look at what you're proposing.

 

[Samuari]

An old idea

Robert A. Heinlein published Starship Troopersin 1959, wher he described a system where service was voluntary, and only veterans had the right to vote, or hold elective office. The theroy being that unless you had placed your life and limb in harms way for your country, you did not have the right to determine its policies. Acouple of notes on the system: First, this did not necessarlly mean millitary service, but that was not the volunteer's choice. Once you choose to volunteer, you were put where you were needed, whither it was building roads, digging ditches, or standing sentry. Two: If you volunteered, they had to find a way to use your service. Three: The term of service was nominally two uears, but if an emergency occured, it could be lengthened indefinatly.

While raising LOTS of new questions it does solve at least two ethical problems: First, the service is volentary, and rewarded. Two, it puts desison making in the hands of those who know first hand the cost of liberty. (It would also disenfrancise me.)

 

[Sparky Kronkite]

As a US citizen.....

I never, ever complain about particulars - that is small thinking.

I complain about the whole damn, antiquated thing, the system.

Quite frankly "it's un-American to sit on ones laurels, nu-American to not seek improvements, un-American to not want a better, swifter, fairer, more just system of government."

For those in the US system, or any other system, I say, "that it is in fact un-partriotic to not bitch about your system of government - and become complacent and accepting and live with, what others have built before you in long past times."

It's highly patriotic to think, to know - that there is always room for improvement. And in the US governments case I believe - room for a complete and modern overhaul.

But then again - I am more patriotic than most.

By the way - I'd like to rest on Laurel's laurels.

 

[Unclebill]

Military Conscription

There are two fundamental positions on this idea.

One is that the government owns the lives of its citizens and has the legitimate power and authority to dispose of those lives and that property as it deems appropriate at the moment. If you ascribe to the totalitarian theory of government, then the military (or any obligatory public service) draft is perfectly legitimate and necessary. Coercion is the means of achieving the desired end defined by the state and you have no right to object or resist.

The other is that people are free individuals with the right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" as stated in the Declaration of Independence. If you ascribe to the latter philosophy which has resulted in the most productive and rapidly advancing industry and technical achievement in the known history of the world, then military or any other obligatory service into which you may be coerced is abhorrent as a violation of those philosophical principles.

Acknowledging as legitimate the idea of obligatory public service is tantamount to acknowledgement of government ownership of the life of the individual citizen.

Originally posted by Thumper
I know how to take orders Ambrosious...do I follow them? Oh Puh-leeeeeeeze

Sparky...my ASS is not yours...not for two years..not even two seconds...ever I am your equal and I will do as I please..that is my opinion..and that is all you or anybody gets.

Wow! Thumper and I on the same side of an issue. What's wrong with this picture?

I spent 25 years on active duty with the Navy. I went to the Fleet Reserve in 1987 and retired in 1992. I had the opportunity to see the response of men in uniform under several administrations. While there is little said as a result of military regulations regarding disrespect for seniors (those in positions of higher authority than you for those not familiar with military terminology), the attitudes of people was notably different. Most memorable was the general attitudes between Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter.

People perceived that under Jimmy Carter, they were unimportant and essentially disposable. They did not perceive any concern or respect from Carter. On the other hand, under Ronald Reagan, there was the perception of respect from the Commander-in-Chief and the attitudes and performance of people in general reflected the perception that they were valued.

From the limited contact I still maintain with active duty military, the perception under the Clinton regime is that the military is a vile evil that must be tolerated. The perception of Clinton's attitude is essentially "when you can be used to distract attention from my personal deficiencies (Bosnia, Sudan) or do shitty little jobs on which I wouldn't dirty my hands (Haiti, Somalia), fine but otherwise, stay out of sight and don't embarrass me" is demoralizing and degrading. No one should be coerced to endure that sort of demeaning treatment.

The fact is, that traitorous coward currently infecting in the Oval Office has gotten military people killed for his own self-aggrandizement (Somalia).

Originally posted by Sparky Kronkite
Can you read? I'm not saying "a draft" - always equates with "the military."

It equates with - "selected, sanctioned, service to the country where you pledge your allegiance."

But what you're describing does ALWAYS means coerced which, to reduce it to simple straightforward English means in essence, slavery, i. e., taking away one's liberty. In a free society, the initiation of the use of force is the fundamental definition of a crime. What you're advocating is a criminal government.

Originally posted by Lasher
Once again, I'm here to help out...

Article I, Section 8, US Constitution

Okay, having read that I missed that part authorizing coercive conscription. If a man is free, then coercive conscription cannot be legitimized. If he is not free, then anything goes as far as government authority. That's the defining difference between totalitarian government and government of a free people. Which are you advocating?

Originally posted by CW
Yes, there is a certain cost associated with any federal level program, and this is no exception. I really believe though, that the added expenses will be more than offset by the added benefits.

And the military is one of the very few that is a legitimate government expenditure.

Originally posted by Sparky Kronkite
If one does not want to serve their country, for the good of their country and humanity - they a simply being selfish - it's only two years at the most. Nothing.

Tell that to the surviving families of those who went to Viet Nam for …two years at the most. Nothing. and are still MIA's.

Originally posted by CW
From what I see every day on the job sites that I visit, and at the stores where I shop,,, I no longer think that you are making a "gross" generalization at all,,, Kids with motovation and pride in their self sufficency are the exception rather than the rule.

How much is due to lack of 'compulsory volunteer service' and how much is due to Outcome Based Education telling them if they feel good about their answer, it doesn't matter that two plus two is really four?

As a classic example, look at the two men highest in this nation's elected offices; neither of them has ever had to earn a living (or meet a budget with money they have actually earned). They have virtually always sponged off the American taxpayer while seeking every day to increase the tax burden on us who do not enjoy their position of luxury.

 

[Sparky Kronkite]

Hey Unc?

Yer a pretty smart and thorough guy - but…..

Ever heard of the color gray? It does exist you know.

You wouldn't be an - EXTREMIST!!! - or anything, like that....

would you?

Hey, just curious - you own any weapons?

Let me know if so and what local to steer clear from.

And also - there might not be a preponderance of white sheets - in your wardrobe closet - would there.

Got a lot of matches around the house?

 

[Sparky Kronkite]

Hey Uncle Bill -

Mr. French wants to know........

Yer a pretty smart and thorough guy - but…..

Ever heard of the color gray? It does exist you know.

You wouldn't be an - EXTREMIST!!! - or anything, like that....

would you?

Hey, just curious - you own any weapons?

Let me know if so and what local to steer clear from.

And also - there might not be a preponderance of white sheets - in your wardrobe closet - would there.

Got a lot of matches around the house?

 

[Samuari]

Really Srparky, that's pretty extreem yourself. Actually what Unc did was set up a straw cow and then flame it. It's a false argument , and I suspect that he knows it, and set the whole thing up just to get your goat. oops got to go...cross burning on another thread!

 

[Sparky Kronkite]

Maybe Sam but.....

He is waving that Libertarian flag - and I only want to help educate kids. A program like I imagine - would be far from totalitarianism. Jeesh.