OP-ED Options for U.S. National Service - Divergent Options

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
With the regular trotting out of such proposals along with the wearing out of and the recruiting and retention problems the US Military has been enduring from multiple deployments and yo-yoing on headcount and budget due to "sequestration", which has been covered and discussed here at TB2K, you have to wonder how many of these articles, both in the "popular press" and the more obscure sources, are going to be "run up the flag pole" before something "happens"... HC

----

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://divergentoptions.org/2017/11/20/options-for-u-s-national-service/

Options for U.S. National Service

Posted by
Divergent Options
November 20, 2017

Adam Yefet has a Master’s degree in International of Affairs at*George Washington University’s Elliott School of International Affairs.* He is based in Israel. *He can be found on Twitter at @YefetGlobal. *Divergent Options’ content does not contain information of*an official nature nor does the content represent the official position of any government,*any organization, or any group.

Editor’s Note: *This article is an entry into our*70th Anniversary Writing Contest: Options for a New U.S. National Security Act. *The author submitted this article under the contest heading of Most Disruptive.

National Security Situation: *A revised National Security Act of 1947 could create a national service requirement.

Date Originally Written: *September 30, 2017.
Date Originally Published: *November 20, 2017.

Author and / or Article Point of View: *Adam Yefet has a Master’s degree in International Affairs from George Washington University. *He writes here as an American concerned with U.S. National Security.

Background:**Seventy years after the signing of the 1947 National Security Act, the world is still an unpredictable and dangerous place, but it is not governed by the same fears. *In 1947, the chief concerns of U.S. national security professionals were re-establishing European stability, and preparing for the coming Cold War with the Soviet Union, and ensuring the United States remained atop the new post-war order in an age of industrialized, mass-produced warfare and nuclear bombs. *The urgency of a threat could be measured in the number of troops, tanks, ships, missiles etcetera that enemy states could marshal.* As such, the 1947 National Security Act established an American military and intelligence complex meant to sustain American interests in the face of these challenges. *Today, conventional warfare remains a primary concern, but not the only one.

Significance: *The modern American political environment has revealed intense cleavages in American socio-politics. *Social trust seems on the verge of breakdown as citizens retreat to curated information bubbles not limited to of-the-day political commentary but expanding into the very facts and analysis of events both modern and historical. *Shared truths are shrinking and becoming a thing of the past. *Internal divisions are the greatest existential threat to the United States of America. *A 2017 National Security Act that includes provisions to bridge this divide could reunite the American people behind the values that helped shape America.

Option #1: *Mandatory National Service. *
A new National Security Act could include a provision for one year of mandatory national service to be required of all Americans to be completed between a certain age rage, for example between the ages of 18 and 25. *There would need to a be a number of service options, some existing, some needing to be created, including service in any of the military branches (which would require longer service) or one of several national organizations such as Peace Corps, Teach for America, and City Year. *New services to be created could involve public, local community, and international development, such as public works projects, agriculture development, vocational work, early childhood development, and senior care. *National service will affect all Americans equally, across socioeconomic, ethnic, cultural, gender, racial, and religious lines. No one can buy their way out of the program.

Risk: *The creation of a national service program in peaceful and relatively prosperous times would be a massive economic and political endeavor that would reshape several industries with an influx of cheap labor. *The financial investment on the part of the government to train, house, and pay even a meager salary would be enormous. *The transition process within affected industries would be long and complicated and would face a winding legal path. *The executive power to do so and the consent of the government and the governed to receive it may be impossible to create outside the aftermath of a sharp crisis like World War II and the ensuing Cold War that brought about the original National Security Act.

The gaping political divide and widespread political disillusionment the program seeks to solve would be two of the greatest threats to undermine the program before it got started. *A requirement of national service would be anathema to many Americans as an assault on their principles of limited government and freedom. *Bipartisan political support may not be enough in the current political environment. *Prolonged resistance to service could be politicized and create another ugly divide within the nation. *A program plagued by political divides and undermined from the beginning would risk doing more harm than good.

Gain: *This requirement to serve would be an opportunity for young Americans to live, work, and consociate and will bind them to each other in common national cause. *Service will create an equal opportunity for American citizens to work and learn in a team environment with a sense of national purpose.

Americans found a significant common bond in the 20th century in the course of winning two world wars, crossing the Depression in between, and living the fears and competitions of the Cold War. *Success in these endeavors came from a sense of purpose, for American victory, and required massive government investments in people, jobs, infrastructure and science that paid off in the creation of our modern state and economy a modern global order that has delivered peace and prosperity to more people than*at any previous time in human history. *A mandatory national service program would give all American’s a common bond of shared burden that comes before political divisions.

Option #2: *Re-Instate the Draft.
The United States military is stretched thin from the two longest wars in the country’s history, and the global deployment of troops and resources. *If these conflicts are going to be seen to a successful end while maintaining the U.S. military as the strongest in the world, the United States must ask more of its citizens. *Global politics are entering a transitional period heralding the decline of the American-led global order established after World War II. *Interstate and intrastate conflicts are spreading across the Middle East, Asia, and Eastern Europe. *The future of international relations and affairs is unknowable but the U.S. military and intelligence apparatus should be prepared for catastrophic events. *The Selective Service and Training Act[1] already requires young men, and now women, to register. *The foundation already exists for America’s men and women to be called to service.

Risk: *The peacetime draft of potentially millions of citizens will require the enlargement of the already massive Defense Department budget. *The long-term increased costs for veteran support areas of the government, especially health care, would be significant. *The influx of potentially millions of troops, many of whom do not want to be there will demand experienced leadership from military and political figures who may not be up to the task. *The draft may have the effect of lowering the standards of the military branches as they seek to find places for new soldiers and retain them into the future to meet the demands of American foreign policy.

Gain: *All Americans will share the burden of America’s global role as a military and economic superpower. *Service will give the United States government the manpower it needs to be prepared for the conflicts of the present and future. *The American people called to service will have a greater appreciation of their responsibility as citizens in the management of American democracy and American foreign policy. *The draft would pull in America’s best and brightest for service to the nation’s security.

Other Comments:* None.
Recommendation: *None.

Endnotes:
[1]*50 U.S.C. – SELECTIVE TRAINING AND SERVICE ACT OF 1940. (n.d.). Retrieved October 27, 2017, from https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/granule/USCODE-2009-title50/USCODE-2009-title50-app-selective-dup1
 

Raffy

Veteran Member
Neither of these options are constitutional. They are both forms of slavery and/or involuntary servitude (not for punishment of a crime) and are forbidden by the 13th Amendment of the US Constitution.

The article goes on to quote the passage below:
"The modern American political environment has revealed intense cleavages in American socio-politics. *Social trust seems on the verge of breakdown as citizens retreat to curated information bubbles not limited to of-the-day political commentary but expanding into the very facts and analysis of events both modern and historical. *Shared truths are shrinking and becoming a thing of the past. *Internal divisions are the greatest existential threat to the United States of America. *A 2017 National Security Act that includes provisions to bridge this divide could reunite the American people behind the values that helped shape America."

"Provisions to bridge this divide" between the American people could only refer to some means to control the information that people receive - i.e., propaganda. Definitely not something favored in my book!

US Constitution, 13th Amendment:

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.[1]
 

onetimer

Veteran Member
Neither of these options are constitutional. They are both forms of slavery and/or involuntary servitude (not for punishment of a crime) and are forbidden by the 13th Amendment of the US Constitution.

Per the courts they are not "forms of slavery and/or involuntary servitude" so the 13th does not apply.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
Neither of these options are constitutional. They are both forms of slavery and/or involuntary servitude (not for punishment of a crime) and are forbidden by the 13th Amendment of the US Constitution.

The article goes on to quote the passage below:
"The modern American political environment has revealed intense cleavages in American socio-politics. *Social trust seems on the verge of breakdown as citizens retreat to curated information bubbles not limited to of-the-day political commentary but expanding into the very facts and analysis of events both modern and historical. *Shared truths are shrinking and becoming a thing of the past. *Internal divisions are the greatest existential threat to the United States of America. *A 2017 National Security Act that includes provisions to bridge this divide could reunite the American people behind the values that helped shape America."

"Provisions to bridge this divide" between the American people could only refer to some means to control the information that people receive - i.e., propaganda. Definitely not something favored in my book!

US Constitution, 13th Amendment:

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.[1]

"The Draft" is the calling up of the "unorganized US military reserve", per US Code Title 10 Chapter 13, that's the definition of the Militia of the United States... https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/granule/U...DE-2011-title10-subtitleA-partI-chap13-sec311

10 U.S.C.
United States Code, 2011 Edition
Title 10 - ARMED FORCES
Subtitle A - General Military Law
PART I - ORGANIZATION AND GENERAL MILITARY POWERS
CHAPTER 13 - THE MILITIA
Sec. 311 - Militia: composition and classes
From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov

§311. Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 14; Pub. L. 85–861, §1(7), Sept. 2, 1958, 72 Stat. 1439; Pub. L. 103–160, div. A, title V, §524(a), Nov. 30, 1993, 107 Stat. 1656.)
Historical and Revision Notes
1956 Act
Revised section
Source (U.S. Code)
Source (Statutes at Large)
311(a)
311(b)
32:1 (less last 19 words).
32:1 (last 19 words).
June 3, 1916, ch. 134, §57, 39 Stat. 197; June 28, 1947, ch. 162, §7 (as applicable to §57 of the Act of June 3, 1916, ch. 134), 61 Stat. 192.
In subsection (a), the words “who have made a declaration of intention” are substituted for the words “who have or shall have declared their intention”. The words “at least 17 years of age and ***** under 45 years of age” are substituted for the words “who shall be more than seventeen years of age and ***** not more than forty-five years of age”. The words “except as provided in section 313 of title 32” are substituted for the words “except as hereinafter provided”, to make explicit the exception as to maximum age.
In subsection (b), the words “The organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia” are substituted for the words “the National Guard, the Naval Militia”, since the National Guard and the Naval Militia constitute the organized militia.
1958 Act
Revised section
Source (U.S. Code)
Source (Statutes at Large)
311(a)
32 App.:1.
July 30, 1956, ch. 789, §1, 70 Stat. 729.
The words “appointed as .*.*. under section 4 of this title” are omitted as surplusage.
Amendments
1993—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 103–160 substituted “members” for “commissioned officers”.
1958—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 85–861 included female citizens of the United States who are commissioned officers of the National Guard.

That's why the "involuntary servitude" argument hasn't done well in court.
 

Dosadi

Brown Coat
Govt thinks it is the rulers and owners of everyone

those they seek to disarm and rule over may choose to disagree.
 

Publius

TB Fanatic
Hard one to comment on and the draft was completely done away with shortly after we pulled out of Vietnam and know one had to sign up for anything, this went on for five year or so before congress started the selective service again and anyone before that was exempt from signing up, the military was entirely voluntary enlistment as it remains that way to this day.

I think we need to fix things so we are not poking our noses into other counties business and the CIA needs to be cliped and rolled back to what it was intended to be as they are stiring things up and getting us into wars that should have never started in the first place.
 

Sacajawea

Has No Life - Lives on TB
Given that people in the 18-25 age group have little to no useful education (in general), I see this as just another babysitting exercise. Even the military is already having problems with this - the draft counted on younger adults for their better strength, patriotism, courage, endurance and smarts to be able to quickly train up enough raw recruits into soldiers. That assumption about this age group is no longer true.

Until that's corrected, all I predict they'll accomplish is widespread resentment at the mandatory nature of the year of their life and it will be way more costly to attempt to train them to be "of service" than anyone can imagine.
 

Melodi

Disaster Cat
I know people get tired of me saying this, but I've been seeing this hinted at for years and I agree that a growing number of articles like this one is a red flag.

That doesn't mean National Service will happen; as the article points out it would be massively expensive and I think just not tolerated well in peace-time; even countries that traditionally had national service have mostly dropped it or have a very limited program.

But I don't totally count the idea out either; I can't see a draft being tolerated (outside of a horrific and obviously defensive war for the homeland) without a national service alternative though.

Huge numbers of young people simply don't qualify for the military and even a mandatory "pre-boot camp" would only go so far to solve that problem; not to mention that officers don't really want tons of soldiers who don't want to be there in the first place; there were enough problems along that line in Vietnam and these days I suspect it would be much much worse; again an exception would a popular war like WWII, especially one believe to be for direct self-defense.

People in these programs have to be fed, clothed and housed; not to mention probably paid at least a small amount (maybe not minimum wage but at least an allowance for personal items).

I tend to agree there IS a babysitting element in this and/or a way to masque youth unemployment in a "Brave New World" of robots and gig economics; I mean Billy Sue and Bobby Lee are not living at home if they are "employed" at the National Youth Center or whatever they call it.

There really are two problems here: one is the military is falling apart from over-use, under-funding and failure to really support the troops (especially financially but also medically, psychologically and other ways).

The other problem is all those pesky under-employed young people; a huge portion of whom have simply unpayable student debts (especially those up to age 40) and I can predict with no psychic ability being used at all that if such a program is enacted it will have "debt reduction" or even "forgiveness" as part of the initial carrot (as will military service) and/or college tuition credits will be earned for future use (or at least promised).

These problems are not the same problem (military and civilian) but it is obvious that the military can no longer simply count on "hard-times" sending in enough qualified volunteers (the way it happened in the 1970's)to make things keep working; not with all the smaller wars and such.
 

MinnesotaSmith

Membership Revoked
I'm saying this as a guy in his fifties...

And believe it just as much as I did when I was eighteen years old.

Let everyone who favors (say) two years of mandatory national service go spend THEIR two years doing it, starting on the first day such a law is to go into effect. I don't care if you're 40 or 50 years old, have kids in your house, have health issues (obesity, like laziness, is a choice), or just feel you're too "special". Go spend two years living in accommodations like the Peace Corps gets or the WWII Japanese internees had, for half minimum wage, and no access to sex, alcohol, cable TV, air conditioning, heat above 45 F. in winter, cellphones, social media, expensive/restaurant food, or tobacco. Then, you can talk about possibly requiring me, or my children, to go spend two years in a place we don't want to be, doing something we don't wish to do, for wages we don't consider acceptable.
 

Bubble Head

Has No Life - Lives on TB
We don't need a Snowflake Baby Sitting bureaucracy. Although some could use personnel hygiene lessons and a work ethic but not on my dime. Most of the draft would be turned into some commie propaganda city program.
 

Vtshooter

Veteran Member
And believe it just as much as I did when I was eighteen years old.

Let everyone who favors (say) two years of mandatory national service go spend THEIR two years doing it, starting on the first day such a law is to go into effect. I don't care if you're 40 or 50 years old, have kids in your house, have health issues (obesity, like laziness, is a choice), or just feel you're too "special". Go spend two years living in accommodations like the Peace Corps gets or the WWII Japanese internees had, for half minimum wage, and no access to sex, alcohol, cable TV, air conditioning, heat above 45 F. in winter, cellphones, social media, expensive/restaurant food, or tobacco. Then, you can talk about possibly requiring me, or my children, to go spend two years in a place we don't want to be, doing something we don't wish to do, for wages we don't consider acceptable.


As a military vet in his 50's, your rant sounds a bit like a "special snowflake". No alcohol, sex, AC, or cable tv? Come on MS. I'm not in favor of mandatory anything, but look at the news stories about current college students getting triggered over stupid shit.

Since the education system seems broken beyond repair, a couple years someplace they don't want to be, doing something they don't want to do, might be just the ticket to wake them the hell up to the real world. Then again, what the hell do I know.
 

Jeff B.

Don’t let the Piss Ants get you down…
...But I don't totally count the idea out either; I can't see a draft being tolerated (outside of a horrific and obviously defensive war for the homeland) without a national service alternative though.

Huge numbers of young people simply don't qualify for the military and even a mandatory "pre-boot camp" would only go so far to solve that problem; not to mention that officers don't really want tons of soldiers who don't want to be there in the first place; there were enough problems along that line in Vietnam and these days I suspect it would be much much worse; again an exception would a popular war like WWII, especially one believe to be for direct self-defense.

People in these programs have to be fed, clothed and housed; not to mention probably paid at least a small amount (maybe not minimum wage but at least an allowance for personal items).

I tend to agree there IS a babysitting element in this and/or a way to masque youth unemployment in a "Brave New World" of robots and gig economics; I mean Billy Sue and Bobby Lee are not living at home if they are "employed" at the National Youth Center or whatever they call it.

There really are two problems here: one is the military is falling apart from over-use, under-funding and failure to really support the troops (especially financially but also medically, psychologically and other ways).
.

Melodi makes several valid and good, IMO, points.

The professional military doesn't want draftees. There is simply too much that they simply can't, won't or choose not to do that makes them more of a hindrance than help. And, in this country, you can't go over the top in discipline or coersion.

And, the military has been over used and under maintained. It's very similar to the military of the mid to late 70's. Demoralized, poorly equipped and unsure of it's role.

That aside, I find it interesting that an Israeli Jew sees fit to opine on what could work for the United States. I say that because compulsory National Service would not provide a bonding experience for our citizens but would serve as a reactor for conflict and greater alienation. He either knowns not of what he speaks or is deluded.

Jeff B
 

raven

TB Fanatic
the author recommends "national service" to solve . . . what?
The problem solved with "Option #1" is opportunity for American citizens to work and learn in a team environment with a sense of national purpose.
Social trust . . . Shared Truth . . . Internal Divisions . . .

What the author is calling for is a National Indoctrination program which will establish a homogeneous population and culture.
The only problem is that our central planners are creating policy and promoting exactly the opposite.
A homogeneous population and culture has one national language. That is really all you need to say.
But it also does not have celebrations for Cinco de Mayo, Columbus Day (columbus was not an American hero), Native American Day, Black American Day.
And persons who are not citizens would not be able to receive government benefits.
I am certain, most of you can think of other examples of how the government actively incites diversity.

It is pointless to initiate National Service to promote national unity until the government decides it wants to promote national unity
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment
I am cautious about a draft at this point in history. (1) Congress no longer formally declares a war, it just is decreed by the President; (2) Our reasons for going to war in recent times appear to have more to do with the economic interests of a few wealthy people and imperialism than actual defense of America and "fighting for our freedoms." (3) Why are we in Somalia and so many other places with military?

We already have two successful service programs operative in the US. VISTA and AmeriCorps. https://www.nationalservice.gov/programs/americorps https://www.nationalservice.gov/programs/americorps/americorpsvista

When I worked in a remote rural county, our 10 family resource centers took advantage of help from these programs. The VISTA volunteers came with education and skills. They helped set up accounting systems, organize programs and do higher level administrative tasks. In turn, they got to experience what it is like living in a tiny community plopped down in the woods, miles from no where, with people whose ancestors may have lived there for millennium and a lot of "broken toys" and real characters seeking refuge from civilization. The Americorps program helped local people gat paid while they were learning work skills. Both were good programs.
 

Dosadi

Brown Coat
Forced servitude under any name or cause is still slavery.

While mentioned in context with nogs most of the time

The law of the land known as the constitution has that 13Th amendment.

Free men won't tolerate being made slaves, not for long, not even at point of cage or gun.
 

Dosadi

Brown Coat
The "DRAFT" is forced indentured servitude.

For those favoring it I suggest that they go enlist and get ahead of the game.

Unless your suggesting making others go and die, but not yourselves.
 

Ravekid

Veteran Member
Let everyone who favors (say) two years of mandatory national service go spend THEIR two years doing it, starting on the first day such a law is to go into effect. I don't care if you're 40 or 50 years old, have kids in your house, have health issues (obesity, like laziness, is a choice), or just feel you're too "special". Go spend two years living in accommodations like the Peace Corps gets or the WWII Japanese internees had, for half minimum wage, and no access to sex, alcohol, cable TV, air conditioning, heat above 45 F. in winter, cellphones, social media, expensive/restaurant food, or tobacco. Then, you can talk about possibly requiring me, or my children, to go spend two years in a place we don't want to be, doing something we don't wish to do, for wages we don't consider acceptable.

Well said. Funny how the ones pushing this idea of national slavery seem to never be of the age that it will be required of them to give up a year or two of their life. Of course I never hear anything about forcing those to are too old to cough up some sort of "my share" monetary payment as a way to help the country they so seem to be wanting to help. They got theirs, ain't giving up anything more (money and/or time) so they pretty much have nothing to lose if this passes.
 

Ravekid

Veteran Member
As a military vet in his 50's, your rant sounds a bit like a "special snowflake". No alcohol, sex, AC, or cable tv? Come on MS. I'm not in favor of mandatory anything, but look at the news stories about current college students getting triggered over stupid shit.

Since the education system seems broken beyond repair, a couple years someplace they don't want to be, doing something they don't want to do, might be just the ticket to wake them the hell up to the real world. Then again, what the hell do I know.

Please note, that if it hadn't been for adult liberals and progressives, either running colleges, running the left leaning news programs, having a voice with the internet, etc., most of the eye-roll (to many) we are seeing wouldn't even be an issue. Most of the companies making culture topic decisions (ie: Target) are doing so because people in their middle age are making those choices. Young kids didn't go out, take their birthday money and buy everyone participation trophies, adults mid-20s+ allowed that to happen.
 
Top