Guns & Veterans

Veterans and Guns
Should compulsory Military or National service be implemented in the United States?

Introduction
To clarify on my argument, I don’t necessarily propose mandatory military (Army, Navy Air Force, Marines or Coast Guard) or national service (i.e. F.E.M.A., Peace Corps) for every able-bodied citizen between the ages of 18 and 23, male and female (Although I think everyone should). I’m asking if national service would benefit the United States as a country, and might it help educate us as a population to the use, care and respect for firearms (as well as many other benefits).

Although our military is an all-volunteer service, we do have a compulsion to register for Conscription in the United States, commonly known as the draft. The draft has been employed by the federal government of the United States in five conflicts: the American Revolution, the American Civil War, World War I, World War II, and the Cold War (including both the Korean War and the Vietnam War).
The third incarnation of the draft came into being in 1940 through the Selective Training and Service Act. From 1940 until 1973, during both peacetime and periods of conflict, men were drafted to fill vacancies in the United States Armed Forces that could not be filled through voluntary means. The draft came to an end when the United States Armed Forces moved to an all-volunteer military force. However, the Selective Service System remains in place as a contingency plan; all male civilians between the ages of 18 and 25 are required to register so that a draft can be readily resumed if needed.

Countries with mandatory military service,
Armenia, Austria, Belarus, Azerbaijan, Bermuda, Brazil, Burma, Cyprus, Denmark, Egypt, Finland, Greece, Iran, Israel, North Korea, South Korea, Mexico, Norway, Russia, Singapore, Switzerland, Republic of China, Thailand, Turkey, Ukraine, and the United Arab Emirates.

Why Make Military Service Mandatory?
Mandatory military service for most countries is for enhanced security. Countries which face enormous security threats require a large army. As such they prefer training many men and women and make them part of the reserve forces for activation whenever there is a need for more people in the military service.

In North Korea, military service is compulsory for both men and women. However different terms apply for both groups. Men have to complete 10 years in the military service. On the other hand, since 2015, North Korean women must serve in the military from the time they graduate from high school until they attain the age of 23. As a result of this training, North Korea’s military is made up of a large army of 6,445,000 military personnel. Out of these, 945,000 are on active duty while 5,500,000 are reserve forces.

Israel has been the pacesetter in mandatory military service for decades. Participation in the military service has been compulsory for both men and women. For some time, there was a limitation to the combat duties that women could engage in. However, in 1994, after a law suit against the Israeli Defense Army by Alice Miller for not being allowed to fly a plane, women can now engage in all combat positions. Mandatory military service is exempt for nursing and expectant mothers. Furthermore, there are some people who are excluded from the service due to their religious affiliations.

The state of Norway has an interesting history of military service. It is mandatory for all men to be enrolled for military service from the age of 19-44. For women, this was not the practice. This is despite the fact that gender equality is a significant issue in Norway. In Parliament, the threshold of women representation is 40% and the same is the case with board members of public companies. So in 2016, Norway’s parliament passed a bill that would include women in the military service training in a bid to promote gender equality! This bill was effective from summer 2016 and all women aged 19-44 were required to enroll. (1)

France’s President Emmanuel Macron wants to reinstate mandatory military service for young French citizens. The concept initially seems surprising for the markedly modern leader. Mandatory military service is an uncomfortable thought for many, calling to mind the horrors of the American Civil War, the World Wars, and the Vietnam War, when young men were drafted against their will. But the proposed national service in France emphasizes civic duty, is lenient enough to avoid being strictly militaristic, and spans less than a year.

In times of peace, however, military service serves an altogether different function. Arguing for the institution of mandatory military service in the United States, governance studies scholar William Galston theorized about the negative effects of relying on an all-volunteer force, and the potential benefits of a limited prescribed period of civic service.
He writes that volunteer-based recruitment contributes to what he calls “optional citizenship—the belief that being a citizen involves rights without responsibilities and that we need do for our country only what we choose to do.” In other words, relying on a volunteer force weakens the public notion of the responsibilities inherent with citizenship, and—as an extension—a sense of duty to one’s fellow citizens. Galston notes the power of communal service to foster a sense of solidarity and country. Without it, he argues, a nation is more susceptible to internal conflict, and less resilient in the face of external threats, be they political, environmental or otherwise. Galston writes that the idea of universal service would be to promote active citizenship across socioeconomic differences.
The French populace seems to agree. Although there are murmurs of discontent, the BBC reports that 60% of the population is in support of the idea, at least in some form. Currently, the proposed service emphasizes civic duty, is lenient enough to avoid being strictly militaristic, and spans less than a year. (2)

Part 1
On Veterans Day, Americans salute the sacrifices of those who fought to protect the country and its ideals — but those who make such sacrifices are becoming rarer. The share of the population that has served in the military has fallen by more than half since 1980. Active duty numbers are down from more than 3 million in 1966, when there was a draft for the Vietnam War, to 1.3 million today. President Trump, Barack Obama and Bill Clinton never served.

It leads some to question if the gulf between those who serve and those who pay tribute to them should be so vast. Should national public service — military or civilian — be expected of all Americans?

Service advocates, military veterans and political commentators have argued that a large-scale national service program — which would either encourage or mandate that young Americans spend time in military or civilian service — could help unite the country. The idea has been proposed before, as a solution to decline in civic participation and especially after 9/11. This fall, amid the nation's widening political rift, search interest for mandatory national service was at a five-year high.
Most recently, the idea of compulsory service entered the news upon White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders' suggestion that Trump's chief of staff John Kelly shouldn't be debated due to his former rank as general. National service could "bring the role of the military into proper perspective," Lloyd Green, former staff secretary to the George H.W. Bush campaign’s Middle East Policy Group, wrote for Fox News after the dust-up.

"It would create a virtuous cycle," said Robert Litan, an economist at the Council on Foreign Relations, a non-profit think tank. Litan said people from different socioeconomic, racial and ethnic backgrounds working together to improve society "would help bring us together gradually over time." "Just think about if we had this today" to dispatch people to Florida and Puerto Rico, Litan said. "Can you imagine an army of tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of kids spread out? They could help these places recover. “We need a National Service Reserve for disasters like Maria, Irma and Harvey.”

Benefits include student loan forgiveness — but you must work for 10 years at an eligible nonprofit or government agency while making steady student loan payments (serving as a full-time AmeriCorps or Peace Corps volunteer counts as qualifying employment). While AmeriCorps places about 80,000 people a year in positions, it receives far more applicants than it accepts. But a 2012 study commissioned by the National Park Service found if the government were to reduce the backlog of maintenance on public lands using conservation corps (made up of 18- to 25-year-olds considering land management as a career) rather than contractors, it would save more than 80% per project.

"I think it's very much an American tradition to want to help," said Shirley Sagawa, president and CEO of the non-profit Service Year Alliance, who also helped lead the development of AmeriCorps. "Unfortunately, there are not enough positions right now." Sagawa said her organization's goal is to increase access to service opportunities, which she hopes will foster a widespread culture of service. “We would like every young person to say, 'wow, where am I going to serve?' And be planning to serve," she said. Ideally in the future, "you wouldn't dream of electing a president who hasn't served somewhere." (3)

Part 2, The Complications

Advocates, including Litan, say national service participants should be paid a modest income, and could receive benefits not unlike the GI bill — a law that provides educational and training benefits for military veterans. Though he and Sagawa acknowledge that such a program would require a significant federal contribution, both argue the benefits outweigh the costs. But economic debates are not the only barriers.

"I'm concerned about the continued erosion of the rights and liberties of 18- to 21-year-olds in this country," said Mack Mariani, political science chair at Xavier University. "We find it much easier to restrict the rights and liberties and impose new responsibilities on the young rather than deal with problems ourselves. “Even Sagawa doesn't advocate for a mandatory program, noting that some young people face obstacles — working to support a single mother, for instance — that would make service nearly impossible.

"People have family responsibilities. ... There are just issues that people have in their lives that people have to be respectful of," she said. Some also fear such a program might make people think that civilian service should fall only on youth or is a once-in-your-life obligation. “I think service shouldn't be something that you do and you check the box and you're done with it," Mariani said. "Service is part of an attitude. It's part of a broader culture that people do throughout their lives."

Part 3, The Politics

In 2013, Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., sponsored the Universal National Service Act, which would require people living in the U.S. "between the ages of 18 and 25 to perform a 2-year period of national service, unless exempted, either through military service or through civilian service." It did not make it to a floor vote and Rangel is now retired.
Litan said a program of this kind should, in theory, appeal to both parties — the idealism speaking to Democrats, and the service component drawing in conservatives. But he's skeptical it would get much traction in the current political climate.
"President Trump's the wrong messenger for this, because anything attached to his name will automatically be opposed by a lot of the people who would otherwise volunteer for it," Litan said. "A lot of the idealistic kids who want to contribute to their country are not going to respond to a call by President Trump." Trump is unlikely to make such a call, anyway — his 2018 budget proposed to eliminate the Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS), the agency that runs AmeriCorps.
Trump should expand national service, not kill it

There is healthy debate around the idea of a national service program. What is agreed upon is that service itself is deeply American, and if we did more of it, shoulder to shoulder with people we might never interact with otherwise, we wouldn't just feed hungry mouths and teach eager children — we may even heal a nation.

Part 4

List of Pros of Mandatory Military Service

1. Promotes National Unity
Mandatory military service can promote national unity in many ways. First, it allows citizens to learn and train together, creating that shared experience of having served in the military. Then there is also that general understanding of what life in the army is like, what is required of the job, and what has to be done in order to protect the country. Citizens are able to understand and develop appreciation for the sacrifices that people in the military made for their country. And all of these can bring people together, especially when dealing with a cultural or political threat from other nations.

2. Maintain Active Military Force
Having compulsory conscription to the military means having an active reserve of large body of armies that is ready to respond quickly and effectively to any threats to national security.

3. Ensures High Levels of Governmental Participation
With every citizen required to joined in the armed forces when the need arise; the public will be more aware and watchful of the government’s decision, especially in terms of national security and the like. With their lives at risk or at sacrifice, people will seek to understand more about the threats that face their country and will seek a greater voice on how their government approaches problems.

4. Can Provide Useful Skills
Life in the military can teach individuals more than how to throw a salute or shoot straight. The trainings they provide goes far beyond the technical skills needed to get the job done. Many military volunteers who have pursued a career in the civilian workplace mentioned several other skills and work-related attitudes that help them well in their job. These include teamwork, responsibility, initiative, stress management, diversity, and global awareness. Others learn the habits of healthy living and discipline as well as the skills in self-defense.

5. Promote Equality among Citizens
Mandatory enlistment means that “no one” will be exempted from facing wars. All citizens, be they celebrities, rich businessmen or ordinary people, will be required to serve when the nation is facing war or in need of extra soldiers.

Part 5
List of Cons of Mandatory Military Service

1. Violates Free Will
One of the arguments raised against mandatory military service is that it violates people’s rights to exercise free will. No one has the final say whether they should participate or not in the military training and enter the army since it is a compulsory mandate implemented throughout the country.
2. Interferes with Other Forms of Education
Mandatory military service typically drafts young men (and women) when they are at the peak of their learning ability (18 years old) and this delays an individuals’ pursuit for higher education as well as their entry into the into the civilian labor market, reducing returns to human-capital investments as a result.
3. Put Young People’s Lives at Risk
Though you might not like to think about it, part of the process is risking young people lives at risk. Casualties don’t just happen in actual combat or in the battle field but also during training and the like. Mandatory military service, which normally enlists able-bodied young people, put the next generation to serious harm and, at worst, death.
4. Compromises the Quality of Military Service
Unlike voluntary soldiers who are willing to undergo rigorous training and serve the country for a long time in the military, draft soldiers often lacks the necessary experience and preparedness, providing low combat skill quality when the time comes they are sent to war. This could lead to high casualty rate among soldiers drafted under compulsory military service.
5. Not Everyone Is Fit for It
Mandatory military service requires every citizen to join and serve in the armed forces, but not everyone is cut out for it. Whether it is mental issue, physical issue, or psychologically issue, not everyone is fit to meet the physical, mental and emotions demands of the job. Factors like anxiety, depression and the like should be carefully considered. Potentially killing someone is something that every person who was drafted in the military struggles with in their own way. A study conducted by the Anxiety and

BENEFITS OF MILITARY SERVICE: TESTING A MORE COMPLETE SPECTRUM, by Christine Wright-Isak, PhD, Mushfiq Swaleheen, PhD, and S/Sgt. Christopher Guy, U.S.M.C.

Study I Observations. The Study I interviews do expand the current spectrum of assumed G.I. Bill service benefits as perceived by millennial service-members. Consistent with the purpose of discovering and describing perceived benefits other than those of the G.I. Bills, themes and examples of the comments that characterize each one are presented here to show how Phase I observations form the basis for the measures used in Phase II.
Comments revealed five main benefits themes, all of which emerged sooner later in each veteran’s set of interviews.

Self-Discovery. This theme includes development of new skills involving the emergence of previously unrecognized abilities:

“Of course, I have learned skills, and earned a living, but now I know I keep commitments well. Even when…even in difficult situations.” (Participant # 2)
“I became more mature. You learn to take more responsibility for yourself. … I learned a lot about myself. I had a lot of time to think. I became purposeful. I made to-do lists. I’m in the reserve now and they made me a squad leader. I see myself changing.” (Participant # 3)

Solidarity. The powerful bond among unit members, often strongly, emotionally expressed:

“I hated the Army when I was in, and now I miss it badly.” [When asked why] “The team, I miss the team.” (Participant # 3)
“[After I was shot] so they tell me I’m goin’ home and I say ‘no way,’ the only way I’m going home is in a box. I started working out when the surgeon didn’t know so I would be able to walk and stay with my unit.” (Participant # 9)

Purpose. A desire for more than self-interested motivation was a benefit derived from numerous opportunities to render important service to others during their military service. Fulfilling these opportunities brought a heightened sense of personal integrity, enriched by a powerful sense of purpose:

“I don’t have any delusions that anything will fill that void. But the Secret Service may do it somewhat. What I think it will provide is a sense of greater purpose. There will be a greater meaning to it, a point to what I’ll be doing – even when it’s as boring as standing watch.” (Participant # 6)

“What I miss most in normal civilian life … I still miss having a true sense of purpose when I wake up every morning. Before the service, I was in college. I didn’t really care, and now I have this sense of determination…” (Participant # 9)

Achievement. Not expressed as individual ambition, but as the satisfaction of excelling beyond one’s previous abilities, often combined with the satisfaction of being a contributing member of a successful team (implicitly earning the respect of their teammates):

“The Army is the closest I can come to a [place where there is] mutual respect that supersedes flaws or differences.” (Participant # 6)

“I may or may not succeed on my own, but as part of a team where I do my part, I can be sure I succeed when the team succeeds.” (Participant # 3)

Expanded knowledge beyond boundaries of childhood familiarities. Increased awareness of life based on a much wider experience of the world, prompted comparisons to how others live outside the U.S., with greater appreciation for “life in America” and the desire to continue actions that will benefit their communities back home.
“It’s weird at times. When someone’s biggest problem is not being able to get the right color cell phone cover, and that’s a tragedy – that blows my mind. I’ve seen people grateful just for fresh water…” (Participant # 4)

CONCLUSION

Finally, I would like to close my argument with a little bit of personal history and opinion about the argument. I have served eight years active duty in the U.S. Army, two years as a Park Police Officer for the Department of Interior and six years as a Civil Aviation Security Specialist with the Department of Homeland Security. I have been formally trained to use, repair, and maintain explosives, small arms, long guns, as well as foreign made weapons. I have practiced live combat maneuvers, and have experienced going to war.

All of that being said, I am not a gun owner, but I believe that mandatory civil service would benefit all citizens, not only in the familiarization of firearms, emergency preparedness, and critical lifesaving skills. I think it would teach everyone something that I learned as a 17year old (and has stayed with me my entire life), in Army Basic Training (Boot Camp), and that is the use of a weapon, but most of all the respect for weapons. Learning how to use them isn’t just pointing and shooting. It’s learning a relationship between you and an object that demands a great amount of discipline and responsibility.

“What a privilege it is to serve this big, boisterous, brawling, intemperate, striving, daring, beautiful, bountiful, brave, magnificent country, with all our flaws, all our mistakes, with all the frailties of human nature as much on display as our virtues, with all the rancor and anger of our politics, we are blessed."
Sen. John McCain, August 29, 1936-August 25, 2018,

References
(1)(BBC.com, 12/04/18) By: Farah Mohammed
(2)https://daily.jstor.org/is-mandatory-military-service-good-for-a-country/
(3)https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2017/11/07/veterans-day-numbers-dwindling-should-military-civilian-service-required/795893001/
(5)https://www.google.com/urlhttpswww.politico.euarticlepoland-patriotic-nationalist-not-fascist-pis-government
(6)https://www.google.com/imgresimgurhttpwww.onyxtruth.commilitary-patriotismthe-vast-majority-of-people-who-join-the-military-do-not-join-because-of-patriotism