Essay Writer » Essay Blog » Law Essay Writing Service » Mandatory military service

Mandatory military service

mandatory military service

It has to consist of these papers

1.In many nations, military service is mandatory. In Denmark, Germany, and Norway, for example, young men are obliged to serve in the military for at least eighteen months. Pacifists or conscientious objectors who choose not to serve in the military must spend the same amount of time in civilian service to the nation. In the years since 1973, when Congress ended mandatory military service in the United States, some American analysts have been calling to reinstate mandatory military service, more commonly called the draft. Congress has thus far not heeded this call, and the United States continues to maintain an all-volunteer military force. As military needs have grown in the United States due to the wars in the Middle East, however, calls for reinstating the draft have reemerged with more fervor. Indeed, one of the more heated controversies in the debate over the necessity of national service is whether a draft is needed to defend the nation. Arguments for and against the draft in many ways mirror the debate over the necessity of all forms of national service.

Those who support the draft argue that the shared sacrifice that comes from military service would in turn create a shared sense of national purpose. According to leadership and public policy professor Hodding Carter and attorney and author Ronald Goldfarb, “We are proud of having served our country. It carved a few years out of our lives in the 1950s and ’60s, but strengthened our understanding of the country we served and the people with whom we served.”1 Like-minded commentators claim that in a democratic society, the defense of the nation should be a responsibility that is equitably shared. Thus, they reason, without a universal military service requirement, those who serve and in some cases make the ultimate sacrifice for their country are not representative of the nation. Stanford history professor David M. Kennedy writes that “a preponderant majority of Americans with no risk whatsoever of exposure to military service has in effect hired some of the least advantaged of their fellow countrymen to do some of their most dangerous business while they go on with their affairs unbloodied and undistracted.”2

Those who oppose the draft disagree with this characterization of the all-volunteer military in the United States. In fact, opponents assert, even when the draft was in effect, the military has never been reflective of the general population. Currently, claims Walter Y. Oi, an economics professor who served on President Richard M. Nixon’s Commission on an All-Volunteer Armed Force, America’s all-volunteer force has a greater percentage of high school graduates than the general population, contrary to claims that recruit quality is declining. Moreover, he maintains, predictions following the end of the draft that the defense of the nation would be borne by the blood of an all-black infantry proved false. In truth, the Wall Street Journal reports, most of those on the front lines are white. Studies show that a majority of African Americans who volunteer actually choose occupational specialties that will improve their chances of being promoted and retained. Draft opponents also dispute the claim that a draft is egalitarian. They argue that service, even military service, is not democratic if it is compulsory. Thus, they reason, the only true way to equitably staff a military is with volunteers. “Maintaining freedom of occupational choice and relying on incentives to attract qualified individuals for our national defense,” Oi asserts, “is surely the most equitable method of procuring military manpower.”3

Whether a military draft is necessary to equitably and adequately defend the nation remains contentious. The conflicting values reflected in this debate are also reflected in the controversies explored by the authors in the following chapter. Whether national service should be a necessary civic responsibility for all Americans will inform policy in the United States for years to come.

2.Would you like to see your son, daughter, niece, nephew, or teenager neighbor become hard working, respectful, disciplined, honorable, and prepared for life? Would you like to see crime, teenage pregnancy, and substance abuse rates decline?

No, this is not an advertisement for a magic pill; this is an argument for mandatory military service. Each passing generation produces teenagers who are more and more brazen, disrespectful, lazy, and ill qualified for success in the real world. Thus, our society becomes more dangerous, depleted, and dishonest every year.

With one simple albeit radical — move, our government could eliminate these problems and help our children and our country reach its potential. Mandatory military service, or conscription, could cure many of our societal ills and allow American teenagers to truly reach their potential.

Mandatory military service is one of the oldest forms of national service and is common to both democratic and non-democratic countries. Such democratic countries as Austria, Brazil, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Israel, Mexico, Norway, Russia, South Korea, Sweden, Switzerland, and Turkey require male and, occasionally, female citizens to participate in military service when they become 18 years old. These countries prove that conscription, when handled properly, can be an asset to the military, the society and the conscript.

Here’s my basic plan for American conscription: Every able-bodied citizen (both men and women) must honorably serve at least two years in the United States military before they are 25 years old. They can enter the military branch of their liking, request to be trained in a specific field, and serve in the state of their choice. Furthermore, the military will guarantee that conscientious objectors or conscripts wary of conflict will only be placed in non-hostile positions. After two years of service, the conscript is free to depart the military if they choose to do so.

Mandatory military service benefits the military, the country, and the conscript. The military benefits because their forces increase dramatically. For a small increase in expenses, they receive an influx of able young men and women — including many of the best and brightest who often avoid joining a professional army. Resources that go into recruiting programs could be used towards training, and because of higher head counts, outsourcing and subcontracting jobs could more easily be handled in house.

The United States benefits from conscription because national spirit increases, national unity improves, neighborhoods become safer, and society grows healthier. With conscription, troubled teens who normally head to street corners enter the military and receive the training, discipline, and experience that would propel them to a stable and secure life. They unite with people of all sexes, races, and religions to work towards a common good. This allows neighborhoods to become safer and society to become stronger. The workforce gets better workers, families get better mothers and fathers, and the country gets a more unified citizenship.

The conscript benefits from the military service because they learn practical life skills such as first aid, wilderness survival, computer proficiency, and self defense. They become physically fit, mentally strong, and knowledgeable in multiple areas. Conscripts learn how to work hard, discipline themselves, follow orders, think on their feet, and lead their peers. Most importantly they come away from the military with the skills that benefit society, the workplace, and the family. With a college degree, the men and women who served their two years with honors will be sought after by the public and private sectors.

Of course there are many people who believe conscription armies are illegal, immoral, and ineffective. Arguments have been made (and sometimes history has shown) that conscripts often have low morale, little motivation, and a lack of discipline to properly serve in the armed forces. Some say that many conscripts are physically or mentally unfit to be trusted and need training, educat

Last Updated on February 11, 2019

Don`t copy text!
Scroll to Top