John F. Kennedy's quote, "Ask not what your country can do for you -- ask what you can do for your country" is etched permanently in my memory, but it is not etched upon my heart. The quote seems to imply that the government and the people are very separate entities and the one must choose to serve the other. This is realistic enough, I suppose, but it doesn't seem to mesh well with the idea of a government by, of, and for the people. Government should be a representation of the will of the people -- if the government is my representative, why does it want me to do things for it that I wouldn't normally want to do?
John Edwards has established himself as a strong anti-war presidential candidate, but he has also recently declared his support for mandatory national service. Edwards doesn't necessarily have mass military conscription in mind, but essentially he wants the government to force Americans to serve their country and he expects Americans to be delighted to have that "opportunity." What is so silly about this is that every day people do have the opportunity to volunteer their time, labor, and money to help others. The armed forces actively recruit patriots to fight for their country. Edwards won't be providing "opportunities" -- he'll simply be forcing people to serve. Should patriotism be obligatory? I don't think so. In a free country, people should be free to choose their work in life; they should not be forced to labor, even if that labor will be of great benefit to all other Americans. Mandatory national service naturally brings with it problems independent of philosophical concerns. Not only will a portion of those working be unmotivated because they did not want to serve, but people may be placed in jobs they are really not suited to be doing, causing inefficiency. I have confidence in the American military to a great extent because it is a volunteer force; it is a military not of bakers and poets but of professional warriors. Edwards gets a huge thumbs-down from me for supporting this restriction of the liberty of American citizens.
1 comment:
Mandatory national service and voluntary armed services are not mutually exclusive. I cannot speak for Edwards, but a requirement that all young people provide a period of national service could allow military service as a qualifying choice.
The result of this mix of required and voluntary service might well have strong benefits for the country. At the current time the military is stretched to meet its recruiting goals. If all young people were required to provide service in some area, that call would probably lead to more volunteers for the military. Yes, some of these volunteers would not have considered the option without the requirement, but that does not argue they would be ill-equipped to serve.
Remember that World War II was won by a military that was mostly staffed by draftees. It was also a military that was hastily assembled to meet the emergency. Today we have a strong professional force, substantial hardware, and all volunteers. It would be well prepared to take more even if they didn't consider themselves born "warriors."
Join us at Everyone Serves for more discussion of the issues around mandatory national service.
Post a Comment