All Americans Should Serve in the Military (Like the Israelis)

IDF soldier (courtesy instagram.com)

By law, everyone in Israel must serve in the Israeli Defense Force — save Arabs, Orthodox Jews and citizens with certain medical conditions. So about 60 percent of the Jewish nation’s young people complete their mandatory military service. As a former IDF soldier, I believe America should also have compulsory military service. Here’s why . . .

The United States may be the land of opportunity but it’s also a land of social extremes. We’re home to the richest of the rich and the poorest of the poor, with everything in between. Politicians and other power brokers exploit the gap to create divisiveness and discontent, sowing the seeds of social disharmony.

Military service is the great equalizer, putting people from all walks of life together, all working together for a common purpose (no matter how pedestrian that might be).

Some of the kids that served in the IDF with me came from very difficult backgrounds; abuse, neglect, and crime. Their military service gave them basic discipline, learning skills and, in many cases, a direction in life.  

National military service not only strengthens social bonds — promoting diversity! —  it creates a resource for society at large.

In Israel, soldier/teachers and soldier/medics go out to poor communities. In the U.S., soldiers (and National Guard units) conduct supply and search and rescue missions in natural disasters. More generally, the reintegration of military veterans helps create a more educated workforce. Speaking of education . . .

Mandatory military service would do wonders for the cause of gun rights.

If all Americans had hands-on experience with rifles, firearms would be demystified. Citizens would understand what guns can and cannot do; that the person behind the trigger is responsible for what happens when a bullet comes out the business end. AND they’d be able to teach their children actual gun safety.

National service fosters a sense of patriotism and collective responsibility– which many Americans feel is on a downward slope. When we all do our part, give a little, sacrifice together, our social bonds become stronger. And we become more familiar with the ballistic tools we can use to keep us, our families. our community and our country safe.

comments

  1. avatar Hasaf says:

    You forget that most people, in the eligible age range, are not permitted to serve in the military. In the post you mention opportunity; that would be a good first step, to allow all people the opportunity to serve.

    1. avatar Ranger Rick says:

      “You forget that most people, in the eligible age range, are not permitted to serve in the military.”

      Would this be because of obesity and or criminal history? The US military doesn’t need or want that.

      1. avatar California Richard says:

        Mental and physical fitness, general aptitudes, mechanical inclination, general intelligence, health, drug use, etc…. there are a lot of reasons. I was a peace time Marine and thought (still think) they let a lot of people in who should not have been there. Double so for the Army, Navy, and AF. Universal mandatory service would only lower the over all standard of the military, which actually isn’t that high to begin with.

        1. avatar Sert says:

          Not necessarily. Universal service would introduce many additional strong candidates that would have otherwise not served. Those that excel or are highly capable would now also be apart of the armed forces and thus the overall quality would rise.

        2. avatar California Richard says:

          So like Colin Kaepernick?

        3. avatar Ollie says:

          National Service should have programs to assist the elderly and disabled, pick up trash, build and repair parks, fitness boot camps….something for everyone. It should not be just military. It should be 2 years. It should be a prerequisite to obtaining voting rights.

        4. avatar binder says:

          I think the big thing everyone is missing is that if we have universal service, high school would be quite a bit different than it is now. ROTC would be far more popular and gym classes would be tasked with actually getting the kids into shape. And the stigma of not having a honorable discharge would not exactly help you employment chances after getting out.

        5. avatar Matt says:

          I am all about universal service, just not universal military service. As pointed out, a LOT of Americans just wouldn’t be able to cut the mustard and frankly I see no reason to dilute the armed forces or waste vast resources trying to polish a turd.

          Plenty of civilian jobs need doing as well. We used to have a civilian job corps many years ago. Time to revive it. My 2 cents is all individuals before the age of 25 must serve either 1 year of military or 2 years of civilian service. Waivers only granted for health reasons (the equivalent of what would be a fully disabled individual. Too fat, you can always push paper). Non-citizens who want permanent residency can serve 2 years of military or 4 years of civil service. Want citizenship, 10 years military or 20 years civil service.

          One thing to consider with universal military service in the US is the cost. Unless we institute something like a national conscription home guard force that is lightly armed and equipped, consider the cost. 2017 force levels was ~1.2 million active and 800k reserves. Average service length is 15 years for enlisted and 11 for officers. I assume that length of service doesn’t include the period of inactive reserve. That’s about .6% of the US populace. If EVERYONE had to serve even 1 year of mandatory service that would increase numbers by about 5 million. Imagine the cost if we really increased the size of the armed forces by 2.5x. 2 years of mandatory service would swell the ranks by about 10 million.

          You’d also likely increase the number of long service members a bit (those who did their service requirement and then decided to stay on longer), that or the military would kick out more because the force size was too large instead of there being as many long service members.

          You’d absolutely have to go with light, basic equipment infantry for most of them. Or they’d be armed “engineers” doing the job of a civilian job corps, but with basic training and fancy ranks. Otherwise you are talking TRILLIONS more in budgetary expenses of the military really just increased its size by 2.5-5x.

    2. avatar raptor jesus says:

      Oh, you smoked pot once?

      Not eligible.

  2. avatar Kroglikepie says:

    I have been a huge proponent of “citizen service” ala Starship Troopers for a long time.

    Would you like to know more?

    1. avatar TOP says:

      Agree. No service, no vote. It would take power away from the feel-good idiots who are deathly afraid of guns and would rather be stabbed or killed rather than defend themselves.

      1. avatar California Richard says:

        Tell that to Gen Stanley McCrystal or Adm William McRaven. You are too stupid and dangerous as a lowly untrained citizen to be trusted with deadly weapons of war.

      2. avatar Roymond says:

        Actually, TOP, the Starship Troopers model provides for unarmed avenues of service for those “who are deathly afraid of guns” — national service wasn’t (and shouldn’t be) all military.

    2. avatar Icabod says:

      Having read the book rather then the gawd-awful movie, federal service was voluntary. At OCS Rico listens as the service is compared to dogs guarding sheep. It is the guard dogs that volunteer and on result is a revolt isn’t possible. Plus, anyone can join. Even it it’s “Counting hairs on a caterpillar.”
      In no way is it “Evetybody serves.”
      Another part of the book has a blind instructor say “Cadet can you give me back my eyesight?” He then explains that universal service doesn’t work. Only a few have the inmate ability to be guard dogs and the ability cannot be instilled.

      1. avatar Kroglikepie says:

        Agreed. The book was enjoyable, the movie as well but for different reasons. The whole point was voluntary service to become a full citizen, which is an idea I think we need. A lazy sack of crap should not get voting power over my life.

        Would you like to know more?

        1. avatar Bfitts says:

          And can you believe the same author a few years wrote a stranger in a strange land… can you grock it. By the way love the philosophy of both books though.

        2. avatar binder says:

          “Not murder, as long as the lad used it only in self-defense, or in the proper defense of another, such as Jill. Pennsylvania laws against witchcraft might apply”

          I don’t think Valentine Michael Smith is as much of a hippy as you think

    3. avatar Icabod says:

      Having survived the draft, I’m opposed. There was politics, manipulation and outright corruption with the draft. Universal service would be the same. Think about it. There would be a limited number of active duty positions. The rest would be active reserve or simply not needed. The privileged would go through the motions and never be serious about it.
      Then there are a snowflakes. In no way would they be suitable or trainable. What do you do with them? Some 100,000 Vietnam draft dodgers were given pardons. Churches, doctors, etc. all connived to support draft resistance.
      Not going to happen

      1. avatar Geoff PR says:

        “Then there are a snowflakes. In no way would they be suitable or trainable. What do you do with them?”

        Those recruits that are unable to get up and report for duty on time and do as they are instructed are welcome to step into a euthanasia booth and improve the aggregate gene pool of the human race…

        1. avatar Hank says:

          Nah, they can be more uselful ala discinplinary battalion on the eastern front. If they can’t be trusted with loaded guns, that’s fine. They can empty Mosins with bayonets.

        2. avatar California Richard says:

          Or clear mine fields while practicing close order drill,…. or show the Germans that we have more people then they have bullets.

        3. avatar Geoff PR says:

          [The ‘Snowflakes’ that won’t serve their required military service]

          “Or clear mine fields while practicing close order drill,….”

          An *outstanding* idea, a ‘disposable’ minefield clearing service…

          *Applause* 😉

        4. avatar Big Bill says:

          If you’re not suitable for service, then you’re not suitable to be in any position of authority.
          Nor would you be eligible for any government service, to include propping up a shovel in a city road crew.
          However, making citizenship/voting require serving would require a major re-write of the constitution.

      2. avatar Roymond says:

        That’s the thing about universal service: not everyone fits the military. I wouldn’t object to everyone having to go through boot camp (as it now stands) and be listed in the reserve, but no boot camp is possible that will turn everyone into a good soldier (or sailor, etc.).

        1. avatar Geoff PR says:

          “…no boot camp is possible that will turn everyone into a good soldier…”

          There are *always* toilets that need un-clogging, snow that needs shoveling, ditches that need digging, potatoes peeled, pain chipped, etc…

    4. avatar Bob says:

      I was thinking the same thing, and I would have started a comment string about it if you hadn’t already started this one.

      The idea demonstrated in Starship Troopers is that one must earn citizenship by doing some kind of government or military service. It is optional, not mandatory, but the benefits earned by doing it (all the benefits of citizenship) make it something many people would choose to do. Those who would choose not to perform government or military service would be the apathetic or anti-American type people – the ones who really shouldn’t be citizens.

      The result of such a concept would be that those who are in charge of the government and in other positions of power would be loyal to the nation, and they would know what works and what it takes to prosper their nation/state/community. The world would be a much better place if citizenship (and the privileges allowed to citizens only) were an earned privilege, not a birthright.

      1. avatar Neal Cohen says:

        Never read the book and never saw the movie. Do love a song called the same. Regardless, what has been said, seems to make sense.

        1. avatar Scoutino says:

          I highly recommend the book. (And other books by R.A. Heinlein.) The movie is fun, but has very little in common with the book except for name and killing bugs.

  3. avatar Cloud says:

    Flirted with it. Was told you a recruiter I couldn’t due to childhood asthma.

  4. avatar Cloudbuster says:

    it creates a resource for society at large.

    Yeah, so did the other institution of involuntary servitude that we got rid of back in 1865.

    1. avatar Roymond says:

      Sorry, but slavery never, ever produced a benefit for all, societal or otherwise. That’s why Britain managed to get rid of it without a war: they recognized that it has not a societal benefit, but a detriment.

      Of course they also had a landed aristocracy which didn’t depend on slaves, which was an important difference.

      1. avatar Cloudbuster says:

        You’re missing my point.

  5. avatar Triticum says:

    I don’t doubt that military service would provide the benefits you described, and there was a time when I would have agreed with you that having everyone serve in the military would be the right thing to do. However my views have changed and at this point I see compulsory military service as just another form of slavery. Furthermore, while I can’t speak for the Israeli military, there are many things that politicians use the US military to do that I strongly disagree with and I couldn’t be part of it or encourage (let alone force) others to do so.

    1. avatar TrappedInCommiefornia says:

      I think if our international stance was more similar to Switzerland’s more people would be ok with involuntary military service. But with our more “proactive” approach there would be too much dissent when decisions were made that some disagree with. Even if the involuntary members were only supposed to be for the defense of our own soil, eventually the .gov would slowly try to change that, bit by bit like they do everything, until they would be just another branch of the military to do the .gov’s bidding.

    2. avatar Ton E says:

      Agreed it is a form of slavery

  6. avatar ironicatbest says:

    Hell no we won’t go, And it’s,, , one, two, three, what are we fighting for, don’t ask me I don’t give a damn, next stop is Vietnam

  7. avatar Ralph says:

    Sorry, no. Nobody in his or her right mind should be forced to serve the Almighty State in so-called “peace time,” meaning a time when the nation is not under attack. Volunteering is fine, but being reduced to an unwilling tool of policy by a non-caring, incompetent government is worth a revolution.

    The first draft would have caused a civil war except that there already was a civil war in progress. The Vietnam era draft did cause a civil war, even though the war was called “peaceful protests.” Yeah, sure, ask Bill Ayers if he was peaceful.

    The next “peace time” draft will cause a revolution, as it should.

    1. avatar Hank says:

      I doubt it, only because the kinds of people that protest the draft and burn their draft cards aren’t exactly the fighting type. They’re weak minded, hipsters, hippies, etc..They’ll go to prison before they serve or fight.

      1. avatar California Richard says:

        And the remaining 1% of objectors will launch an ultra-leftist domestic guerilla war a-la 1968. Bombings, bank robberies, kidnappings, etc…. and what will the government do (did, a-la 1968)?…. GCA 1968 and SWAT teams, which haven’t gone away in 40 years.

    2. avatar Chris Dumm says:

      Thank you, Ralph, for yet another much-needed dose of common sense in this discussion.

      There is a reason the original Constitution did not authorize the creation of a standing army, and while we obviously do need a standing army today, it’s worth re-reading the Fonder’s thoughts on this subject.

      If our generals and presidents had another twenty million warm bodies at their disposal, how long would it take them to find another strategically-meaningless 3rd World hellhole and build it up as the causus belli for another Spanish-American War? Another Moro uprising? Another Nicaraguan banana crisis? Another Vietnam?

  8. avatar NJ2AZ says:

    in theory, a noble idea. In practice, no thank you. lest we forget the military suffers from the same problems of every bureaucracy: bureaucrats

    I could never join the military, because as soon as my CO gave me some order that i knew was stupid i’d be like “Nope, not doing that”, and i’d be in the brig post haste.

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      I second the emotion. The year I became eligible, they canceled the draft, which was probably a good thing for both the military and for me, and at least in part due to the same reason. I take requests well; orders not so much. It would have been the brig for me for sure. My brother was different. He was ROTC in college, served 21years as an Air Force pilot, retiring as a Lt. Colonel.

  9. avatar rc says:

    “Mandatory military service would do wonders for the cause of gun rights.”

    I’m curious how you draw that conclusion? I love Israel, but one of the things that confounds me most about that country is the high-level of gun control there. Basically, outside of the military and government, gun rights are extremely restricted. So obviously, compulsory military service has done little or nothing for the gun rights of the average Israeli citizen.

    I also don’t necessarily agree…the draft in the US was something of a disaster during and after the Vietnam war. The quality of draftees was extremely poor…it wasn’t until the US went to an all volunteer military that the quality begin to dramatically improve. I don’t like the idea of military service as a social program….though recent meddling by leftists in the US have started to turn it into one huge social engineering experiment. I think that is all going to end badly for us.

    1. avatar Jared says:

      You ask great questions that the author won’t answer. But I’ll answer it for you. Israel has really bad gun laws, contrary to what many gun owners think.

      Also, anyone who values liberty would be HIGHLY suspect of Israel. No 1st Amendment, no 2nd amendment, no 4th amendment., etc.

  10. avatar Josh says:

    The US Constitution doesn’t allow for a permanent Army, for various historical reasons, in other words the Constitution would have to be amended, not impossible, but very difficult.

    Many US States have much more liberal gun laws then Israel, with shall issue permits for concealed carry or even no permit required for open or concealed carry.

    You don’t need to spend 3 years (time for men in the IDF) to learn gun safety and be able to teach your children about gun safety, it would already be great to re-introduce gun safety and shooting sports into schools, a few dozen years ago you could find gun ranges at schools…

    1. avatar Ben says:

      To echo this point several state constitutions point out in one way or another:

      standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be tolerated, and the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power.

      I happen to fully agree.

      1. avatar MamaLiberty says:

        Standing armies – at any time – are an abomination to liberty. If people insist that the standing army be only in time of “war,” the politicians will happily guarantee a “war” of some kind, somewhere, ALL the time. They’ll be happy to enslave us… and chuckle all the way to the bank.

        1. avatar Salty Bear says:

          And they’ve done exactly that.

  11. avatar Joe R. says:

    Bull fing sh_t.

    The IDF is short handed because Israel is.

    The US Military would have a million Bergdahls if it had to take everybody.

    1. avatar Hank says:

      Well, I mean we could take a page out of the Ruskies play book. Get some guys in garrison caps with little red bands around them, give them PPSH’s and bull horns. “Not one step back wards… Anyone who retreats… Anyone who turns around…” – “where’s my ammo!?” –
      “The guy behind you has it..”

  12. avatar Stateisevil says:

    Mandatory service is not service but kidnapping and enslavement. The Imperial United States military is also a global Force for evil and aggression. That someone would prescribe it here from a totalitarian nation (Israel is a nation with no gun rights, freedom of speech, or religion) is no surprise.

    We would benefit from local high schools having voluntary marksmanship training.

    1. avatar Al says:

      Totalitarian nation with no freedom of speech or religion? Whatever you’re smoking, I want it.

  13. avatar Kahlil says:

    Nope, never. Will fight against it if it ever happens. If it did happen though I’d only agree if there was an option to do some sort of community service instead, such as entering the Peace Corps, a human service field, working for/volunteering for an NGO, or AmeriCorps. We place the military on some sort of pedestal that they don’t rightly belong on. People can learn value of life, service, and much more equally – outside the military machine. Just because the Israelis do it doesn’t mean America has to follow suit. Respect and safe handling for firearms can be taught and learned without military training.

  14. avatar RCC says:

    I volunteered at 17 just after conscription was stopped in Australia (1973). I didn’t support our version of “selective” conscription then or now.

    Too many exceptions for people with connections etc.

    I have nothing against army service but prefer all volunteers. Interesting in WW1 when the Australian government tried to bring in conscription by referendum almost the entire defence force voted NO.

  15. avatar Bill Barnett says:

    As a retired service member I have to disagree. Disiplinary issues are difficult enough to deal with regarding personnel that want to be in the military, without having to deal with troops that do not want to be there. Recruiters should be courting nothing but the best from young people who want to serve.

  16. avatar william wessels says:

    You are so right. To many leaders are willing to lead you brave individuals into battle from way back there. Right at this point in time the World is faced with the deadliest most evil times in history. We need to recognize this and do whatever each of us can to forestall these cataclysmic events from becoming a reality. You cannot bargain with terrorists. They have no intention of honoring any agreement. They only understand and comply with overwhelming force. We must each get down on our knees and pray as never before for deliverance and for wisdom and strength.

    1. avatar Saint Mattis of Quantico says:

      I am here for you, my child.

  17. avatar Scott says:

    I’ve had a similar line of thought, but different.

    There should be compulsory service in the state’s militia (the National Guard).

    By law, the National Guard should be prohibited from serving in over-seas combat zones.

    To pick up the slack, federalized National Guard can be activated to take over garrison duties from deploying federal military units.

    The regular military would still be voluntary, and volunteering waives the mandatory National Guard service.

    After discharge from the National Guard, local jurisdictions would have the authority to muster the local Unorganized Militia (check 10 U.S. Code § 246) for security duties. I think responses to Katrina and Ferguson would have been much better had locals been working with the cops and the national guard.

    It would effectively reinstitute the Minute Man system and enable localities to respond to emergencies more effectively.

    1. avatar Ing says:

      YES. This is the way to do it.

    2. avatar California Richard says:

      Nope. I volunteered to be a Marine, but if I was required to do this I would protest. We already have a ready pool of volunteers (national guard) who do what you are describing. Any modern military action that required us to deploy and marshall over 8-million soldiers in one place would only present a juicy and vulnerable target for modern weapons…. today’s wars arent about numbers so much as international influence, relative superiority, and combat efficiency. If we can destroy a nation with 2 infantry divisions, a division of armor, a Marine division, 4 aircraft carriers, and a few wings of fighter planes, dones, and bombers flown from the U.S., then why would we need a 30 million man army of useless forced laborers?

      1. avatar Roymond says:

        I’ve read both four times, and I can’t see any connection between your objections and Scott’s post. Did you get yours in the wrong place?

        1. avatar California Richard says:

          Nope… if you keep reading below others have pointed out that training that many people (assuming we’re only talking about high school graduates) comes out to training a mostly unwilling force of 3.6 million people annually while maintaining a standing military of 1.6 million. That would completely overwhlem the standing military and dilute quality to the point of uselessness.

          If I’m in or arround a disaster zone or have something else going on with my life and the government sees fit to pull me away and use me at its discretion under penalty of prison, then I would revolt.

      2. avatar Scott says:

        TBQH I’m not entirely sure what you’re going on about. My post specifically says that the National Guard would NOT deploy overseas, so it could not be mustered for a war outside of the United States. Also, the National Guard does NOT currently perform garrison duties for the regular military when federal units deploy. So no, the National Guard doesn’t currently operate the way my post says, which you say it does.

        When the military deploys, they leave behind a sizable contingent of troops simply to work the logistics and paperwork. If the II Marine Expeditionary Force deployed tomorrow, Camp Lejeune wouldn’t simply be abandoned. With my plan, II MEF could deploy in its entirety and a federalized National Guard unit could take over the functions of the base until II MEF returned.

        As for mustering a large force in one place, the generals know how to get proper dispersion between units in the field. Having a non-deployable force protecting the home front wouldn’t interfere with maneuvers overseas.

        In fact, it could make our regular military forces even more deadly as the stay-behind elements could be reorganized into combat elements, as the National Guard would be taking over the garrison duties.

  18. avatar route66paul says:

    Some type of betterment service would be great for the final year of high school, where students could work in forests or cleaning national monuments would be great – also would be a great feather in your cap for graduation. The US military works outside our country and for that we need people trained for it – we do not have that many positions for a peace time military.
    Our schools no longer teach how to work, shop classes, homemaking classes, even a home budget class would be great, but no. What a HS diploma was 30 years ago, is now at least an AA or a completion of trade school. The country does not want a yound work force, to they put off meaningfull employment by demanding a peice of paper that means you put in more time. The US government is not going to teach its youth good work habits just to have these kids take over the jobs of middle aged workers.
    The US military does not want to be a babysitter, either

    1. avatar California Richard says:

      Like you said…. a H.S. diploma doesn’t mean anything because everyone is required to get one (or a GED) pretty much. College diplomas are on the fast track to being equally meaningless, as would compulsory service. It would be meaningless because everyone would have to do it. It would only put a black mark in the ledger of an otherwise productive citizen who doesnt have an aptitude for miltary service.

  19. avatar Maxi says:

    The IDF has to reduce female combat loadouts by something like 40-50% of the weight. People are not equal physically so they cannot perform the same tasks in the military.
    However, given the 14th amendment, we can all agree that a male only draft in case of a war is unconstitutional.
    Females and weaker males should get basic military training just to get some discipline and socialisation. After that they should get nurse/medical training and other usefull things that people who are at war but not at the front line should know. Medical, firefighting and self defense skills, caring for the wounded/young/elderly, homekeeping and logistics/military production.
    A war is not just a front line, and if you don’t wanna be there you shouldn’t as you are only a problem to those who actually can fight. But there are other neccesary things that make the backbone of a functional military/country. That is where they could/should serve.

    1. avatar Scott says:

      I’ve held the position for a long time that the military should take the WWI stance, “Free a Man to Fight” stance in regards to women service members. Non-deployable billets only, for the purpose of putting actual fighters on the front.

      1. avatar California Richard says:

        We don’t fight wars like that anymore. We aren’t going to fight a war where we need 15 million soldiers. Isreal, Sweeden, etc all have conscript armies because they have traditionally been surrounded by superior hostile nations. It breeds a sort of personal/national understanding that “my service is essential to the survival of my country and people” that has never existed in the United States.

        1. avatar BLoving says:

          I was waiting for someone to point that out: Israel is not the United States – Canada and Mexico are not plotting to destroy us and take over our land (no, Mexico is NOT – don’t go there). Israel, on the other hand, is surrounded by nations who would LOVE to have a race to see how many dead Jews they can pile up. That country’s survival depends on being able to repel all of the active, real threats that exist right now, as I type this. Totally different set of circumstances.

        2. avatar Scott says:

          Of course we don’t fight wars like WWI anymore, that’s more than 100 years ago at this point.

          You don’t seem to understand how the military is structured.

          In the Marines, at least, there are individuals called “OC Field Sponsors” whose job it is to shift manpower around to ensure all the work an MOS field needs to do gets done. All it would take would be an order from the President or the Secretary of Defense to instruct all these people that female service members are to never have a warzone duty and remain in stateside (or allied country) garrison. The Sponsors would have to develop some new systems and plans for shifting the personnel to where they need to be, but that’s simply a paperwork and a logistics issue, not a “wrong kind of war” issue that you’re saying.

          The philosophy of “Free a Man to Fight” would still work, it’s the details that would be different. This way, we can have entirely male combat and support units in the combat zone and sacrifice less in terms of combat effectiveness from mixed-gender units.

        3. avatar California Richard says:

          A soldier, even if he is a man, is not an equally replacable comodity. You can’t take a toilet scrubbing private, replace him with a woman, throw him in to a modern infantry battalion, and say, “There’s one more more fighting man in the line!”…. If you knew anything about modern combat units you would know that. Infantry only makes up 10% of a modern ground army and is further diluted if you factor in naval and air assets. Infantry isn’t for the slap dicks, or mentally/emotionally/physically weak.

        4. avatar Scott says:

          Let’s look at some history, shall we?

          We’ve had conscription for the Civil War, WWI, WWII, Korea and Vietnam.

          Can you name one conflict we lost because conscription broke our military?

          The answer is we won all of them. Including Vietnam, which was a military victory but political defeat.

          My second point which you seem to be missing entirely, is that the National Guard would be prohibited from serving in overseas combat zones. This means that they could only ever be deployed into combat during 1) an invasion or 2) an insurrection. For all foreign wars, the forces would be composed entirely of volunteers, as they are now.

          There is no modern force anywhere in the world capable of invading the United States currently, making your (false) point about conscripts not being able to wage modern war moot, as such a war will not be brought to our shores for a long time.

          An insurrection would be a rebellion among the people who would, again, not have access to modern military weaponry past whatever they could seize from local armories.

          We would definitely need to improve our military infrastructure before fully implementing such a system. Every state would require its own boot camp system to train its Guard. However, this is actually how training worked during the Civil War and before as units would be composed of men from particular regions, who would train there, and then go off to the front. Hence the name, “28th Massachusetts.” That’s where the men came from and that’s where the men trained. It would be entirely possible to implement a similar system again. It just needs to be set up properly before we try it.

          As for supply issues, what are you smoking? The modern military is well supplied with everything it needs. The logistical system would have to be expanded, but not very far, as the new units they’d be supplying would stay within the United States. It’s not like we’re taking the whole National Guard system and sending it to Siberia.

          For the record, there is no MOS for scrubbing toilets. For being a Marine Veteran, you seem to not believe that every Marine is a Rifleman. This is not to say that every Marine is Infantry. All non-infantry Marines go through Marine Combat Training to familiarize themselves with infantry tactics and weapons systems just in case they find themselves in actual combat. It wouldn’t be too difficult to take non-infantry units and put them through new infantry training to convert them from logistical duties to combative duties. Nor would it be difficult to take Marines from unnecessary rear elements and put them through other training to become direct-support elements to perform duties in the war zone. Once again, all federal forces would be volunteers.

          What I’m getting from your posts is that you simply don’t believe the military is capable of fighting a war.

  20. avatar PeterC says:

    After graduating from Columbia, I enlisted in the Army for two years. My immigrant grandparents had made it clear that it was the duty of all their male descendants to serve in the military, in gratitude for the opportunity this country had given our family. I learned more about life in two years in the military than I did in four years at an Ivy League university, and I learned more about interacting with a wider range of people.

  21. avatar Chris T from KY says:

    Yes I say draft them all. No one gets any government money. Not a school loan. Not a grant, nothing unless they have served in the military. The democrats sent people to Korea, Vietnam, Serbia, Lybia, Syria. Obama bombed over a dozen countries. Don’t tell me it’s all the republicans fault.

    The Left has complained for decade’s there are to many Christians in the military and about the Christian influence in the military. Sending Americans to war gets lots of Christians killed for the atheist leadership in the country.

    Let’s make everyone have a chance to get their sex organs mutilated. Come back blind in one or both eyes.

    There is no anti war movement in the USA. And there never was.

  22. avatar Curtis in IL says:

    “We’re home to the richest of the rich and the poorest of the poor, with everything in between.”

    Really?
    The poorest Americans get free health care, welfare, food stamps and subsidized housing, not to mention that every American child gets a free education. They also get to vote for Democrats who promise to keep them on that gravy train.

    Compare us to Bangladesh or most of Africa. That’s where the real poverty is.

    1. avatar Badwolf says:

      Yes i was gona say the same thing…

      Poorest of the poor? I dont think it means what you think it means. The real poorest of the poor live on less than usd $1 a day. Think about that. Try surviving 1 whole year on nothing but $361.35 ($0.99 x 365), thats how refugees in africa and people in slums of asia live.

    2. avatar What About Bob says:

      That’s what hit me too. Our poor in the US have large TVs, a roof, enough to eat, and spending money. This thanks to the productive, and the debt put on our great, great, great grandchildren, who will be paying the 2018 bills.

      1. avatar California Richard says:

        I would even argue that the “American poor” are the most obese people on Earth.

        1. avatar Curtis in IL says:

          True. In the U.S. there is most definitely an inverse relationship between wealth and body weight. I wonder if there are other nations that could say the same.

          Visit some place that’s popular with tourists from overseas. It’s easy to spot the foreigners. They’re the ones who are thin and speak grammatically correct English.

        2. avatar Joe R. says:

          If all you’re exposed to is crap food, with lots of sugar, and aren’t subjected to hard physical labor, you’ll be heavy and poor. There’s plenty of skinny homless who walk around all day, and sharecropper / rancher / Nutra-rat and Alligator farmers kids that look like Kiera Knightly.

  23. avatar Alan Esworthy says:

    A government that mandates universal involuntary servitude, military or civilian, would be a government against which I would rebel violently.

    1. avatar Scott says:

      What is your response to Jury Duty summons?

      1. avatar IdahoBoy says:

        “Just look at his eyes, Yer Honor! He’s as guilty as the day is long! Hang him, hang him high I say!”

        Gets me out every time.

        1. avatar Geoff PR says:

          “Gets me out every time.”

          Just mention you will be happy to give the guilty bastard the fair trial he, she, or other deserves.

          They will lose interest in you as a juror very quickly…

        2. avatar PeterZ in West Tennessee says:

          I don’t know what the courts are like where you live, but around here they will excuse you from the jury and then the judge will order you to sit in the front row of the courtroom for the duration of the trial or face contempt of court.

        3. avatar Roymond says:

          I don’t see how a judge can get away with that. If you’re on the jury, you have to follow orders, but if you’ve been excused then you’re gone. Judges can evict people, but I’ve never heard of them having the authority to tell someone they have to stay when they’re not part of the trial.

      2. avatar Alan Esworthy says:

        The subject of jury duty gives me heartburn. I’ve been called a few times, and I’ve gone and done it. I welcome the opportunity to keep the govt honest (criminal trials) and to keep a&&holes from screwing anybody (civil). But the mandatory nature is troubling.

        As for military duty, I enlisted in the Army and was in from early ’69 to late ’71, honorable discharge at E-5. Note that I volunteered because I wanted to have the experience. I acknowledge that military duty can be a valuable thing. I don’t acknowledge that forcing people to serve under penalty of prison or death is anything other than slavery dolled up with a patriotic theme song.

        1. avatar Roymond says:

          If jury duty weren’t mandatory, we’d soon end up with professional jurors. God only knows where that would take us!

      3. avatar Yellow Devil says:

        “What is your response to Jury Duty summons?”

        The Sixth Amendment. It’s one of the few specified rights in the Constitution that require the expense and time of another individual(s).

    2. avatar Mister Fleas says:

      “A government that mandates universal involuntary servitude, military or civilian, would be a government against which I would rebel violently.”

      lol, no. The government has had drafts in previous wars, and near universal militia service even in peacetime. There is nothing morally wrong with what the Israeli writer is proposing.

  24. avatar Jared says:

    No thanks, please respect our constitution. We are socialist Israel.

    The 13th Amendment was supposed to outlaw involuntary servitude.

    Being free means to be able to say no.

    The Soviet Union has compulsory service, it didn’t do wonders for them.

    The issue in the United States is that we are a hyper inclusive mass democracy and most people should not be allowed to vote. A possible list includes

    1. Anyone on welfare.
    2 Anyone convicted of a serious crime.
    3. Anyone who works for the government.

    1. avatar Scott says:

      Your Soviet Union remark is a straw-man. Conscription has been part of the might of most military forces since the beginning of recorded history. Wars have been both won and lost with conscripts. Whether or not one country had a good or bad system is irrelevant as to whether it’s a legitimate means to boost man power.

      1. avatar California Richard says:

        Iraq had a conscrpt army in 1991 and we beat them with a fraction of the available combat manpower. Conscription has nothing to do with modern combat effectiveness, unless your plan is to have more bodies than my B-1B has cluster bombs… https://youtu.be/bYXdk-qTl5U

        1. avatar Scott says:

          Do you not believe that conscripts can be taught to use modern technology and combat tactics? Whether or not a massed formation of men can endure a cluster bomb has little to do with whether they were conscripted or volunteered and more to do with their positioning. Are they out in the open? How deep have they dug their trenches and bunkers?

          The only real difference in a conscript force vice a volunteer force is morale, which would be easier to break in a conscript force.

        2. avatar California Richard says:

          Conscripts have traditionally been: poorly trained, poorly led, poorly equipped, poorly motivated, and generally used as human labor or cannon fodder.

          Generals who have used conscripts effectively in battle have variously lost them in the 100’s of thousands, allowed them to die from exposure/sickness, or thrown them up against machineguns for no purpose.

          And yes, you can train 30 million people how to use modern equipment, but seeing as how we have trouble supplying and training our 1.6 million man military currently, I lack faith in our abiliity to effectively implement that on a scale 30x bigger.

          To transport, supply, feed, and support an army that large would also make for very vulnerable logistics systems that would easilly come under attack. You would have an unfed, ill equiped, unsupported, untrained army in the field who, without shovels (because if you cant get food and water why would they have shovels and picks), couldn’t dig trenches when a B1B loaded with cluster bombs flies over head.

      2. avatar Roymond says:

        “Part of the might”… no, not always. How much of the population gets included in a military depends greatly on the level and type of technology available and necessary for war. Jerry Pournelle wrote a great essay on the matter once, though I don’t know where to find it right off.

      3. avatar Jared says:

        So if my Soviet Union “remarks” were “strawman” as you say? Does that mean everything else made perfect sense?

    2. avatar jwm says:

      Jared. You say no involuntary servitude when it comes to the draft. And then you say no voting rights for large segments of the population.

      A conflicted tyrant?

      1. avatar Roymond says:

        It’s perfectly consistent. The premise is that those not interested in investing shouldn’t have a say in operations.

      2. avatar Jared says:

        A conflicted tyrant? Not at all.

        The idea that every person has a vote always leads to tyranny. I prefer property rights.

        There was a reason the constitution didn’t mandate universal sufferage, because they knew it would ultimately lead to universal suffering, which it will.

        So yes, mass voting is tyrannical and people ignore that here because they are too busy crying “muh rights! Muh rights!” and cry about the constitution. They don’t understand that it doesn’t mean anything in a hyper inclusive mass democracy, no contract or individual right does.

  25. avatar IdahoBoy says:

    Israel has conscription because it’s necessary to survive in a bad neighborhood. Without conscription, and annual reserve duty, Israel would be perceived as weak, and it’s enemies would be further emboldened.

    The US is another matter entirely. I see no need for conscription. If someone was invading, or seriously considering invading, the United States, then the population at large would volunteer. Even though I am past military service age, I would pick up a rifle and join them, or provide whatever service I could to defend us from imminent or actual invasion.

    But that means of course that someone would actually have to consider invading the US, and face complete nuclear annihilation as a consequence. Not bloody likely.

    If nobody is invading, then we’re simply fighting wars to protect our “interests”. Those wars need to be fought by volunteers.

    1. avatar duce says:

      Israel survives because the US pays for it. Israel is just the apartment in the city where the USA keeps its ideological mistress and guilt for WWII. Let stop acting like conscription is why Israel exists.

  26. avatar former water walker says:

    No. Having barely missed Vietnam I have a bit of an overview. My son wiilingly joined at 18,just missed theGulf War, was in several crappy Mideast countries including Egypt,Jordan,Kuwait and the green zone of I-rack. He speaks Arabic and works for the gubmint. HIS CHOICE! Personally I believe a military conscription should ONLY occur in dire need(like an invasion). Not our endless Asian (MISS)adventures. It makes sense in a tiny nation like ISRAEL. We haven’t had a war I’d volunteer for since WWII.

    1. avatar Roymond says:

      Yes. History shows that conscription is necessary only when things are dire — and rarely even then. Just look at the “America First” movement right before WWII: the moment the news came of the Japanese attack, the great majority of those folks not only shut up, they headed down to the recruiting office.

      1. avatar Yellow Devil says:

        Only up to a point. Executive order 9279 lowered the draft age to 18 but barred anyone from ages 18 to 37 from voluntarily enlisting into the military. Roosevelt felt that the volunteer process wasn’t as orderly as conscription, and most men after 1942 had to wait to be drafted regardless. Hence why 38.8% (6,332,000) of U.S. servicemen and all servicewomen were volunteers, 61.2% (11,535,000) were draftees.

  27. avatar Bob says:

    No. With a civilian population of 320 million, the US would spend its entire defense budget of food and basic training. Not that it’s a bud idea in and of itself, but too impractical.

    And I call 100% BS on the “poorest of the poor” comment. The biggest health problem for poor Americans is obesity, not a lack of food or other basics. Good grief!

    1. avatar Scott says:

      For pragmatic reasons, such a system would probably only include the graduating class of high school seniors that year. It would be a major increase, but it’s not like we’d be stealing every granny from a terminal hospice, putting a gun in her hand, and telling her to stand in a trench behind barbed wire while still wearing her hospital gown.

      1. avatar Bob says:

        Quickly found one estimate of graduating HS seniors in the US at 3.6 million. The US military has 1.4 million on active duty. So yes, such a plan would overwhelm the military.

  28. avatar Chris Mallory says:

    Conscription might be good for an Asian nation like Israel, but it has no place in the United States. We should have a militia, instead of a standing army, forbidden from ever being sent overseas for any reason.

    1. avatar Scott says:

      Did you read my previous comment above about the militia system I’d design? Seems to be in line with yours.

  29. avatar CalGunsMD says:

    “If all Americans had hands-on experience with rifles, firearms would be demystified. ”

    Plenty of those who served voluntarily are antigun.

    1. avatar Scott says:

      True, but the rest of them would be less apt to fall for hoplophobic lies.

  30. avatar pwrserge says:

    Maybe not military service, but actual federal service in some fashion to get the franchise seems fair. I can see quite a few federal projects that could use a large infusion of good old fashioned manual labor. I’m a big fan of Heinlein.

    1. avatar Azman says:

      I too am a fan of Heinlein. The portions of his work that regard slavery as repugnant, like conscription. “We will fight against Federated Nations if we must. We will never join them.”

      1. avatar pwrserge says:

        Since service is voluntary and rewarded with the franchise, it is not slavery, by definition. It simply acknowledges that something with as much power as the franchise has to earned.

        1. avatar Pg2 says:

          You love to cherry pick individual freedoms, don’t you?

        2. avatar pwrserge says:

          The franchise is not a freedom, it is an authority to be exercised over others… Keep trying.

    2. avatar Cooter E Lee says:

      Heinlein “starship troopers” , Ayn Rand “atlas shrugged” and God “the Bible” wrote the fiction that the world should aspire to in my opinion. (Yes, I’m calling the Bible fiction and saying it’s still worth reading.)

      If anyone reading this has not read these books, I HIGHLY encourage you and can almost guarantee they will be your favorites.

      I cannot imagine a more happy, productive, and fair way for humans to exist.

  31. avatar Em says:

    NOOOOOpe. I don’t want to deal with anyone who doesn’t want to be there next to me. An oath given under duress is no oath at all. And “serve or go to jail” is definitely duress.

  32. avatar neiowa says:

    18yr as Infantry officer US Army.

    Respectfully you’re full of crap. Women are largely useless pawns in military service. It does not matter for what nation. I’m sure someone will certainly throw up all the Stalinist propaganda about female, snipers/fighter pilots. BS. Next always comes a citation of the chicks in the Israeli army as an example of a very skilled Western force.

    In small units the presence of women (and social experiment degenerates) are destructive to small unit cohesion and efficiency. COMBAT units. All else is tooth not nail and thus useless BS. You can force feed the gals into combat support roles but the typical gal does not IMPROVE unit operations compared to the typical guy. What means one for one degrades unit performance. The gal can not physically perform typical battlefield or support roles. Can carry the ruck or change the 16.00x 20 truck tire. Young gal, even those not screwing or whoring their way thru the unit, at a minimum distract the young man from his duty. That gets other soldiers DEAD.

    Women in the Israeli army are useless window dressing. It is all propaganda. More kibbutznic (marxist) wing of Israeli society. Wasted energy and effort by the IDF.

    When I was much younger and dumber, I believed in “every young man” should serve. Experience has taught me that is idiotic pap. Today, even more than 30 years ago most young “men” do not have the backbone or physical capability needed. The Army/USMC have a very difficult time finding 18yr old males that are not butterballs (or snowflakes).

    Only earn the franchise my serving? I’m with you. BUT NO ONE has the “right” to serve. I don’t give a damn what you want. Are you able? Anything/anyone that does not IMPROVE the capability REDUCES the capability and that gets other young men DEAD. Women, queers, tranny, __________. As I now have a son serving who could well bear the impact of this dumbing down, it is personal. That DOD is STILL marching to Obumer social experimentation is a crime. Women in the Infantry, Combat Engineer, etc. Pathetic, laughable, criminal irresponsibility and dereliction of duty by the Obumer appointed General officers.

    What moron recruits 4’8″ 110lb little girls into the freaking US ARMY for ANY role?

    1. avatar Scott says:

      Let them push papers or cook food so the man who would have otherwise done that can be on the front.

    2. avatar Blurb says:

      Anyone can find landmines.

    3. avatar tiger says:

      Maybe 18 years is enough for you? If you hold fellow soldier with such disdain to call them pawns and disrespect the Potus; I do not need you in a command position any longer.

      1. avatar pwrserge says:

        O’bung’hole is not now and never has been POTUS. That fetid shit stain should never have been allowed anywhere near the White House. And he’s right. Females aren’t built for combat. The have nether the physique nor the mentality for it. Allowing them into the armed forces was retarded.

        1. avatar tiger says:

          Sigh…… politics & Misogyny of the worst order. We will agree not to agree.

        2. avatar pwrserge says:

          Show me a woman not on massive amounts of drugs who can take me in a fistfight and I will retract my statement.

    4. avatar IdahoBoy says:

      Tell that to the Caracals.

      1. avatar Kyle in Upstate NY says:

        Caracal patrols the relatively peaceful southern border with Jordan. They are not used for any kind of hard core infantry work and only exist for reasons of political correctness.

  33. avatar Hank says:

    As a veteran myself, I have to agree with most posters here that an all volunteer military is far superior to a conscripted one. And, as much as I’d like to see us force all the hipster liberal snowflakes into cannon fodder divisions, to feed to Chinese machine guns, to thin out our weakening gene pool, that just ain’t going to realistically happen.

  34. avatar piper says:

    That’s not Constitutionally legal here. However, we are all in our State’s militia by law and should be trained after high school and have at least twice yearly meets.

  35. avatar Nanashi says:

    This would destroy gun culture in the US. Notice Japanese flood rental ranges at American tourist traps but Korean men avoid them like the plague because it reminds them of something they had to do.

  36. avatar Stereodude says:

    America is home to the poorest poor? Clearly Rob hasn’t left the country. America has the richest “poor”.

    1. avatar Dyspeptic Gunsmith says:

      In the United States, the “poor” who draw down all of the public assistance that’s out there are cutting a fat hog in the ass. I’ve read bits of analysis that show a single mother with two children, who has applied for all the federal bennies, is pulling down about $50K+ in benefits (not all of which is cash or checks from Uncle Sugar Daddy), when the US Median Household Income is up to about $59K.

      In other words, the poor ain’t all that poor. They’re being funded to have a rather comfortable life.

      1. avatar MamaLiberty says:

        The poorest of the poor in America seem to be the homeless, especially the homeless veterans. In so many cases, their “service” has damaged or destroyed their lives and far too few in the country give a damn – including the government that destroyed them.

        America has no legitimate excuse to maintain a standing national military. Any form of conscription is slavery. Unfortunately, most Americans don’t understand that they have already been slaves to the non-voluntary government all their lives.

        I understand the whole military thing pretty well. I was a “Marine brat” and a Navy wife. Widowed now for 32 years. My late husband was kicked to the curb after 20 years “service” in both Korea and Viet Nam. The military holds no promise of anything related to individual liberty or honor for anyone.

        1. avatar pwrserge says:

          Yeah… because if we didn’t have a standing military, the Chinese and durka durkas would totally leave us alone. Sometimes you need the ability to do unto others before they do unto you.

  37. avatar tiger says:

    Well……… No.
    First, The US has very different military needs.We need Quality manpower, Not quantity. We do not need a WW1 or WW2 sized military to walk into Flanders Fields. And social benefits aside, there are numerous programs for these goals already. Nor do we need thousands polishing boots and marching all day. Not with a debt of $20 Trillion to pay for.

  38. avatar Evan says:

    No thanks, don’t want to be forced to spend 4 years or so with random people against my will, to work on projects deemed “good for collective society.” I don’t care about the collective, and the collective (bureaucrats really) is stupid and bad at choosing projects.

    Worst case scenario, I die in a foreign land for people I don’t care about because a John McCain type gets a hard on for them.

    1. avatar pwrserge says:

      Then you don’t get to vote. Simple.

      1. avatar IdahoBoy says:

        Sorry, citizen means citizen here buckaroo.

        1. avatar pwrserge says:

          Citizenship and the franchise are separate issues. Minors and felons are citizens, but still can’t vote. Same idea. Any time you want to pick up the franchise, you’re free to do so as long as you demonstrate that you can be trusted with it.

  39. avatar VerendusAudeo says:

    Such a policy would bankrupt the US within a decade. There are over 300,000,000 citizens. Even The PRC, a nation of over 1,000,000,000 people has a military numbering approximately 2.3 million personnel, less than a fifth of one percent of the population. Note that compulsory military service only occurs in very small nations.

  40. avatar Redneck farmer says:

    Uh, in the States, people say the advantage of the draft is it would REDUCE diversity, by teaching everyone to think a certain way.

  41. avatar Excedrine says:

    No.

    Just… no.

    Go away.

  42. avatar Dyspeptic Gunsmith says:

    I grow weary of these comparisons and suggestions of policy imported from other countries, especially countries with explicit and daft predilections towards socialism. Israel is one such nation, the domestic policies of which we should avoid.

    We should be better served by assisting and encouraging those who wish to remake the United States into one of these other nations to emigrate to the nation of their desires. In the case of those who want the US to emulate Israel’s domestic policies (which include the strict regulation and licensing of civilian gun ownership), I should hasten to point out El Al has flights leaving JFK and Miami for Tel Aviv on a daily basis.

  43. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

    No.

    Fucking No.

    Conscription is slavery.

  44. avatar Joe says:

    The IDF also promote condition three carry of handguns. Just because the Israelis thought something was a great idea doesn’t mean it would work here in United States of America. We are in fact two completely separate countries, operating under two completely different sets of laws, with completely different cultures and histories. As a wartime Marine Corps vet who served in combat I can tell you there are far too many people wearing our nation’s uniform that should not be. And that is not because there were hundreds of thousands of people that were denied the ability to join. If you want to promote a common sense of purpose and improve the quality of life of all Americans then instead of wasting the lives of millions of highschooler’s doing stupid crap in our public education system then put them to work cleaning up streets, building things with their hands, learning real life skills, apprenticing in a trade And preparing for college exams for the last two years of their high school education. Don’t have a high school diploma? Then you don’t get to vote. Want to vote and don’t have one? Go back to school.

  45. avatar Chris Thompson says:

    I’d love to see a whiny SJW candyass pussy get his ass beat by a DI like how the Russians treat their conscripts.

    https://youtu.be/r0q4gcQ2IUw

    Love the part at the end where he knees the recruit in the face then pushes him to the floor.

  46. avatar Yellow Devil says:

    As a ten year Veteran in the U.S. Army sent to both Iraq and Afghanistan, I say hell no to conscription.

    – We can’t afford to send every 18 year old into the service for a few years.
    – We don’t have the infrastructure. Not since many of the bases have been mothballed since the end of the Cold War.
    – No evidence it will do anything for gun rights.
    – The military operates on a mostly foreign expeditionary footing, where volunteer professionals is better than sending conscripts.
    – Social cohesion? Wealth discrepancies? That’s not the job of the military. The military isn’t here to babysit adults, or force young people to like each other better. People tend to forget the military represents the community it serves.

  47. avatar Lowell says:

    Absolutely NOT! You have to deal with enough people that don’t want to be there/don’t belong there when it’s VOLUNTEER, and you want to draft EVERYBODY? No way.

    Robert Heinlein had it right, get rid of the reserves entirely, tie the right to participate in government if you finish one six year contract, and then make it easy to walk away. We’ll keep the ones that actually care and are worth something.

  48. avatar Erich says:

    Oh, cool. Add more time for those of us with mandatory post-secondary-education to wait before we can start our careers and really provide for our families, awesome idea. I’m a law student who’s nearly 25, married, and only waiting for that first full time job to have children. I don’t have time for your conscription malarkey, in addition to its incompatibility with my religious and political standpoints.

    Also, conscription is slavery according to the same set of facts that make taxation theft. None of you are entitled to the product of another’s labor that’s not freely given in voluntary exchange. Any compulsory service or contribution to the state rests on the same justification as communism.

  49. avatar Alexander B. says:

    I disagree. The military is fine as is, a voluntary force. It keeps morale (somewhat) high and people who want to be there there not to mention you’d have to cut current Veteran program/benefits to accommodate the large influx of incoming personnel. It’d be interesting to see the social impacts with the current cultural climate but also would come at a time most volatile.

  50. avatar Kendahl says:

    Heinlein’s model was quite sophisticated. Service was voluntary and a prerequisite to full citizenship. Those who didn’t serve were much like permanent resident aliens in the US. They had most of the rights of full citizens but not the ultimate ones like voting. Full citizenship was granted only after service was completed. Service wasn’t necessarily military. It was whatever was needed that you qualified to perform. Outside of emergencies, the government actually had difficulty finding enough projects to employ all those who volunteered.

  51. avatar DaveL says:

    I’ve served as staff on recruit courses before, in the Canadian army reserve. It seems to me that taking fit, self-motivated young people and turning them into world-class soldiers is a very different job from turning juvenile delinquents into decent adult citizens. I fear that, while you might succeed in getting a better citizenry out of the deal, the quality of your soldiers would suffer.

  52. avatar BierceAmbrose says:

    When I remember that through age and medical status, I’m ineligable … suddenly, I’m fine with this.

  53. avatar Darkwing says:

    Mandatory military service is the same a slavery.

  54. avatar Dave says:

    This person CLEARLY is an idiot of EPIC proportions when it comes to understanding FREEDOM.

    “Compulsory” and “Freedom” don’t mix, jackass. I’m no one’s slave, dickhole. Go enjoy your apartheid state, scum.

  55. avatar doesky2 says:

    We’re home to the richest of the rich and the poorest of the poor, with everything in between.

    Bullsheet.
    Our poor is not the “poorest of the poor” by any socialist stretch of the imagination.

    Most of our “poorest” have flatscreens, cable TV, and a cellphone that millionaires in the 1980’s couldn’t buy.

  56. avatar drunkEODguy says:

    nope, sorry don’t want to serve next to conscripts and wouldn’t want my buddies still in to have to. I want those people who are there to want to be there, or at least willing to despite knowing better now. Plus conscription is anti-American in general. I’ve thought about this however and think a better idea would be a certain number of mandatory hours of community service to graduate highschool. Could do most as class activities and leave some to be done individually. This would foster the “community” thinking and sense of belonging as well as give seniors something to do during their skate year.

  57. avatar samuraichatter says:

    I got to disagree with this socialist equalizing experiment. The military industrial complex is big enough already without throwing millions of Americans into it to further justify its existence.

  58. avatar Mad Max says:

    We’ll, at least firearms and marksmanship training & qualification, including covering self-defense law (use of force, castle doctrine, stand your ground, escalation/de-escalation, etc.), you know, to “regulate the militia”.

    Everyone should be required to participate (except the mentally ill and felons that haven’t served their full sentence).

    Some people are going to take a lot longer than others.

  59. avatar Jim Bullock says:

    I’m not sure I like the idea of socially-engineering people into the “right” kind of citizens, by whatever means. By federally-imposed indoctrination seems just scarey.

    Skills, reality checks, and perspective are useful results from.doing actual stuff. BUT, the techniques in basic mirror the techniques of brainwashing, and cults. (Also political parties, movements, and fashion – but, I repeat myself.)

    It sounds attractive, but who’s gonna grab those levers? It’s standard practice for “revolutionaries” to indoctrinate cohorts of the young, as the shock troops to “fix” the society they come from.

    Mandatory “public”education happened this way, and mutated from cultivating individuals, to manufacturing economic units, to programming right thinking revolutionaries. Do we really think the levers of a federal service won’t by hijacked to arm somebody’s internal police, or poulate somebody’s do-gooder corps? B T W, what’s the difference between two?

    Qualifying for entry into local self-organized service orgs might work: voluntary emergency responders, fire fighting, search n rescue. Maybe even bailing flooded people out of hurricanes. (O K, that one’s crazy.)

    Maybe being an adult means qualifying to assume the common burdens of citizenry. Like being part of the militia, or something similar. But, where I grew up everybody carried gear in their car up to tow chains, n you just helped anybody stuck. You were expected to be competent, and equipped. Or mocked n dismissed as more like a pet than a person.

    Personally, I’m a fan of “…a rifleman behind every blade of grass.”, but that’s some pissy guy who doesn’t need you imposing your rule on his couple acres of personal utopia. Everyone’s in the Army forever is where universal conscription ends up; attractive for wanna-be overlords who think our lives should be lived their way.

  60. avatar Patrick says:

    A country that temporarily enslaves its citizens to kill or be killed is not worth protecting. Conscription is evil. Full stop.

  61. avatar Hal J. says:

    “I also think there are prices too high to pay to save the United States. Conscription is one of them. Conscription is slavery, and I don’t think that any people or nation has a right to save itself at the price of slavery for anyone, no matter what name it is called. We have had the draft for twenty years now; I think this is shameful. If a country can’t save itself through the volunteer service of its own free people, then I say: Let the damned thing go down the drain!”

    —Robert A. Heinlein

  62. avatar Spartan357 says:

    If the resident ‘turtle face’ shooter is not a US citizen, then he can go get bent. If he is, he should realize no body gives a shit about his opinion

  63. avatar Some Dude From Over There says:

    As a Libertarian (and veteran), I’m abjectly opposed to any and all things compulsory. I do believe, however, that one should be able to reap extensive income-tax/property-tax reduction based on number of years served (maybe throw rank in there too as a weighted modifier?).

    So while not compulsory, it should offer tremendous benefits for those able to serve (in some capacity).

  64. avatar duce says:

    Forcing people to serve in a cause for the State implies that the State is more important than the individual. This is forced altruism. One of the outcomes of such a system is that the State is the most important and must be protected over any person(s) in society. The State can thus force anyone to do anything to preserve the State’s existence including the murder of its own people. You see where this is going…

    The State could justify seizing anyone’s property because the state claims to need it; they will bring guns.

    Forcing individuals to join the military for the public good requires them to be a victim. The individual should not be forced to recognize the good of others, such recognition should be a choice.

  65. avatar GD says:

    With that many military trained people, and military potential, what do you do when a group of politicians decide to turn them all into cannon fodder and spark some big war with another first world country?

  66. avatar Cory C. says:

    No, Americans should retain the freedom to do as they please. Besides, have you met Millenials? You want to share a foxhole with most of them?

  67. avatar patrulje68 says:

    I have seen too many conscript army where the majority of the troops were horrible, I would never want the US to go to a mandatory military service. It would have too negative an impact on the caliber of our troops and the capability of our military.

  68. avatar Kurt says:

    A universal requirement to serve (in the military, or in any other fashion) contravenes both common sense and the 13th Amendment.

    Far better to offer firearms training starting around age 9 or 10, in all schools. Notice “offer”, not “require”.

    Kurt

  69. avatar Nix says:

    And you know what I think grobman? The holocaust didn’t happen, but it should have.

    1. avatar IdahoBoy says:

      You are one sick puppy. Seek professional help.

  70. avatar ozzallos says:

    Ah, the Starship Troopers argument. Great on the face until you realize we have a civilian CNC for a reason and a military beholden to him. Likewise the volunteer army and where their loyalties lay. Sure, it’s inconvenient at times to have civilians running the show, but there’s a damn good reason for it.

  71. avatar Jross says:

    Hmm…screw everyone with eczema or flat footed or with asthma I guess.

    Would be an awesome way to create a whole new class system though wouldn’t it? Those that make the cut gets to enjoy the type of government benefits socialists dream about after putting in their x years. And those that don’t get to….idk it’s not like anyone would care as long as they were getting what they want.

  72. avatar Kyle in Upstate NY says:

    My opinion is no. Otherwise we aren’t really a free country. For those who mention jury duty, I am not comfortable with that either. Israel is a small country surrounded by hostile countries, so their situation is different. And conscription during a major war can also be understandable, but even then it depends on the war.

  73. avatar Alexander says:

    Quite surprised to see so many socialists on this site who would like to see national military service / government slavery. But that is a separate subject from this blog. However, as to the national military service being in someway good towards the Second Amendment, I would disagree. In Israel, which is used above as the model, there is almost no civilian ownership of personal weapons. The same person who, while on military duty, must carry his or her rifle everywhere in the service of the State, the very next day is forbidden to own and carry a gun for the purpose of defending oneself. In the US, a great many anti-Second Amendment voices come from former and current members of the military, including generals and admirals. It is not so much the familiarization with weapons that matters most, but one’s views and understanding of liberty vs submission to the State.

    1. avatar Ken R says:

      Well said. I also was disturbed by the number of responders we feel people exist to serve the state and not the other way around.

      1. avatar Adam says:

        Neo-Conservatives are just as much a cancer to this country as Progressives.

        Both represent a desire to have huge governments and control the lives of the individual. Progressives what to control your money, Neo-Conservatives want to control your body. That is why we have so many pro “Force them to serve the government” people in this comment section.

        TTAG has a ton of Neo-Cons that love big government as long as that huge government keeps away from their guns. They flat out don’t care about any other rights. Single issue voters at their finest.

  74. avatar Nelson says:

    Mandatory slavery! Yay!

    Written like a true statist govt terrorist dildo fucker.

    You want an ENTIRE population full of #BellamySalute delusional SOCIALISTS?? Yes, do call for literally NAZI conscription, you utterly clueless buffoon.

    Your ancestors Marx & Engels would be proud of your mandatory equality of outcome: lowest common denominator.

    Like most RINOs you know NOTHING about individual sovereignty.

    utter dumb assery. xD

    1. avatar Alexander says:

      “Written like a true statist govt terrorist dildo fucker.” — It seems like every blog has their share of limited vocabulary individuals with a great desire to express themselves…

      1. avatar Nelson says:

        indeed: “Written like a true statist govt terrorist dildo fucker.” — It seems like every blog has their share of limited vocabulary individuals with a great desire to express themselves…

        along with binary simpletons, who presume a drive-by commentary is indicative of the whole of one’s diction.

        xD

        1. avatar Alexander says:

          The fact is that the world judges you by what you display or, in this case, express. Indeed, Shakespeare is judged by the same measure.

    2. avatar Nelson says:

      Indeed: The fact is that the world judges you by what you display or, in this case, express. Indeed, Shakespeare is judged by the same measure.

      as would people who can discern, observing those who choose to comment on the style of commentary, vs the content, because the former is their primary concern: emotional.

      ’cause let’s ignore the obvious verifiable historical fact: conscription is slavery, based on the ‘legal’ doctrine that presumes the State can and does own you, and only allows you to use yourself as it sees fit.

      you’re like these SJW commies who get uppity about words, ignoring the real point of discussion. Just like how MSM chooses to focus on utter nonsense, and make drama out of HOW something is said, while consciously ignoring and omitting the real point of the discussion.

      your response, the premise behind the nature of your replies, show far more about yourself, than my commentary.

      and yes, ’cause the purpose of muh drive-by commentary at TTAG comments section is designed to be Shakespearean memory in annals of history.

      Indeed, the world does judge you, by what you display; in this case: your lack of discernment, and your penchant for false equivalency.

      xD

  75. avatar Adam says:

    Our military is already bloated and wasteful enough. We need to cut spending by at least 25%, not increase.

    1. avatar Kurt says:

      It should be cut a whole lot more. If we withdrew from most/all of our overseas bases, and stuck to actual defense of our own territory, we’d save enormous amounts of money.

      Kurt

  76. avatar adverse5 says:

    I do not care how the Israelis do it.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email