mandatory national service essay

United We Serve?: The Debate over National Service

Subscribe to governance weekly, e.j. dionne, jr. and e.j. dionne, jr. w. averell harriman chair and senior fellow - governance studies @ejdionne kayla meltzer drogosz kmd kayla meltzer drogosz.

September 1, 2002

12 min read

Americans are always for national service—except when we’re not.

Our public rhetoric has always laid heavy stress on the obligations of citizenship. “With rights come responsibilities” The statement rolls off the tongues of politicians without their giving it a moment’s thought. “Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country.” John F. Kennedy’s words are so embedded in our civic catechism that the mere mention of the word “service” automatically calls them forth. On Veterans Day and Memorial Day, we rightly extol the valor of those “without whose sacrifices we would not enjoy our freedom.” Bill Clinton praised the idea of service. George W. Bush now does the same. It is one of the few issues on which our last two presidents agree.

Yet how firm is our belief in service? There is no prospect anytime soon that we will return to a military draft—and our own military is skeptical that a draft would work. The number of politicians who support compulsory national service—the case for it is made powerfully in this issue by Robert Litan—is small. President Clinton succeeded in pushing his AmeriCorps program through Congress, building on the ideas of Will Marshall and others at the Democratic Leadership Council who sought to reward young people with stipends and scholarships for giving time to their country. But many Republicans denounced the idea as “paid volunteerism. Representative Dick Armey, the Texas Republican, described it as “a welfare program for aspiring yuppies” that would displace “private charity with government-managed, well-paid social activism, based on the elitist assumption that community service is not now taking place.”

And in truth, many Americans doubt that they or their fellow citizens actually “owe” anything to a country whose main business they see as preserving individual liberty, personal as well as economic. In a free society, liberty is a right owed to all, worthy and unworthy alike.

Finally, Americans differ widely over which kinds of national service are genuinely valuable. Many who honor military service are skeptical of voluntarism that might look like, in Armey’s terms, “social activism.” Supporters of work among the poor are often dubious of military service. Most Americans honor both forms of devotion to country, and we have included here powerful testimonials to the varieties of civic dedication. But in our public arguments, the skeptical voices are often the loudest.

Our divisions about the meaning of service are rooted deeply in history. At the founding of our nation, liberal and civic republican ideas jostled for dominance. The liberals viewed personal freedom as the heart of the American experiment. The civic republicans valued freedom, too, but stressed that self-rule demanded a great deal from citizens. The liberals stressed rights. The civic republicans stressed obligations to a common good and, as the philosopher Michael Sandel has put it, “a concern for the whole, a moral bond with the community whose fate is at stake.” In our time, the clash between these older traditions lives on in the intellectual wars between libertarians and communitarians. When it comes to national service, the libertarians lean toward skepticism, the communitarians toward a warm embrace.

Yes, we have changed since September 11, 2001. Respect for service soared as the nation forged a new and stronger sense of solidarity in the face of deadly enemies. What has been said so often in the past year still bears repeating: our view of heroes underwent a remarkable, and sudden, change. The new heroes are public servants—police, firefighters, rescue workers, postal workers whose lives were threatened, our men and women in uniform—not CEOs, high-tech wizards, rock stars, or sports figures. At a time when citizens focus on urgent national needs, those who serve their country naturally rise in public esteem. In the face of an attack that imperiled rich and poor, powerful and powerless alike, it was natural that, in Sandel’s words, “a concern for the whole” and “a moral bond with the community whose fate is at stake” became more than abstract concepts.

Accordingly, the politics of national service also has been transformed. Even before the attacks of September 11, President Bush had signaled a warmer view of service than most in his party. In choosing two Republican supporters of the idea—former Mayor Steve Goldsmith of Indianapolis and Leslie Lenkowsky—to head his administration’s service effort, Bush made clear he intended to take it seriously. But after September 11, he made service a central theme of his administration. In his State of the Union message, he called on Americans to give two years of service to the nation over their lifetimes and announced the creation of the USA Freedom Corps. It was a patriotic, post-September 11 gloss on the old Clinton ideas—and the ideas of John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, and his father, the first President Bush, who offered the nation a thousand points of light.

There is a new acknowledgment across the political divides that government support for volunteers can provide essential help for valuable institutions that we too often take for granted. It is easy for politicians to talk about the urgency of strengthening “civil society.” But through AmeriCorps and other programs, the government has found a practical (and not particularly costly) way to make good on the rhetoric. Paradoxically, as Steven Waldman points out here, AmeriCorps, a Democratic initiative, fitted in neatly with the Republicans’ emphasis on faith-based programs. Democrats were acknowledging the need to strengthen programs outside of government; Republicans, that voluntary programs could use government’s help.

That national service has become a bipartisan goal is an important achievement. It is reflected in the White House’s Citizen Service Act and in bills cosponsored by, among others, Senators John McCain and Evan Bayh. In this case, the world of legislation mirrors the spirit of the moment. As Marc Magee and Steven Nider of the Progressive Policy Institute reported this summer, applications for AmeriCorps have jumped 50 percent since September 11, those for the Peace Corps have doubled, and those for Teach for America have tripled. Yes, a difficult economy may have pushed more young Americans toward such endeavors. Nonetheless, their choices point to the power of the service idea.

But what is the connection between the ideas of service and citizenship?

Citizenship and Service

Citizenship cannot be reduced to service. And service-good works whether of faith communities, the private sector, or “communities of character”—cannot replace the responsibilities of government. Service can become a form of cheap grace, a generalized call on citizens to do kind things as an alternative to a genuine summons for national sacrifice or a fair apportionment of burdens among the more and less powerful, the more and less wealthy. But when service is seen as a bridge to genuine political and civic responsibility, it can strengthen democratic government and foster the republican virtues.

Lenkowsky made this connection when he urged attendees at a Corporation for National and Community Service conference to turn “civic outrage into civic engagement” by increasing the reach and effectiveness of volunteer programs. No one can dispute visionaries like Harris Wofford and Alan Khazei, who have shown how AmeriCorps, VISTA, the Senior Corps, and the Peace Corps have transformed communities. But Paul Light questions whether this transformation is sustainable. Can episodic volunteerism build the capacity and effectiveness of public and nonprofit organizations? And to what extent can we separate respect for service through volunteerism from a genuine respect for those who make public service a way of life—in the military, the local uniformed services, the schools and the hospitals, and (dare one even use the word) the bureaucracies? As Alice Rivlin notes, “recreational government bashing “saves us from facing up to how hard it is to make public policy in a free market economy.” Will the new respect for service make government bashing less satisfying as a hobby? It’s possible, but we are not holding our breath.

Underlying the debate over national service is an argument over whether service is necessary or merely “nice.” If service is just a nice thing to do, it’s easy to understand why critics, well represented in these pages by Bruce Chapman and Tod Lindberg, express such strong reservations about government-led service programs. But is it possible that service is something more than nice? What if it is—as Bob Litan, Harris Wofford, Carmen Sirianni, and Charlie Cobb suggest in different ways—a means to strengthen the ties that bind us as a nation? What if it creates bridges across groups in our society that have little to do with each other on any given day? What if service, as the New Left’s Port Huron Statement put it 40 years ago, can mean “bringing people out of isolation and into community”? What if it fosters civic and political participation in a society that seems not to hold the arts of public life in the highest esteem? In sum, what if service is not simply a good in itself, but a means to many ends?

Service and a New Generation

Surely one of these ends is the engagement of young Americans in public life. As Peter Hart and Mario Brossard argue here, the evidence of many surveys suggests that young Americans are deeply engaged in civic activity. In his 2000 campaign, Senator John McCain—initially a skeptic of national service, now a strong supporter—won a wide following among the young by urging them to aspire to things “beyond your own self-interest.” Service learning, increasingly popular in our public schools, has been linked with a heightened sense of civic responsibility and personal effectiveness. If the new generation connected its impulses to service with a workable politics, it could become one of the great reforming generations in our nation’s history.

And service could become a pathway to a stronger sense of citizenship. As Jane Eisner argues, service “must produce more than individual fulfillment for those involved and temporary assistance for those in need.” It should, she says, “lead to an appetite for substantive change, a commitment to address the social problems that have created the need for service in the first place.” Eisner suggests that as a nation, we should celebrate the First Vote cast by young people with the same fanfare that greets other moments of passage to adult responsibility. The goal would be to encourage a new generation that is gravitating toward national service to make the connection “between service to the community and the very process that governs community life.”

A focus on service and the links it forges between rights and responsibilities of citizenship could also offer new ways out of old political impasses. For example, Andrew Stern, the president of the Service Employees International Union, suggests that a two-year commitment to national service could become a pathway for undocumented workers to legalize their status and for legal immigrants to speed their passage to citizenship. And former felons now denied voting rights might “earn credits toward restoration of full citizenship” through service.

Jeff Swartz, the CEO of Timberland, offers practical proposals for business at a moment when the public demand for responsible corporate behavior is rising. He suggests that obligations to shareholders, to employees, and to the community are linked. One reason his company is on Fortune magazine’s list of the 100 “Best Companies to Work For” is its program of service sabbaticals through which employees can spend up to six months working at existing or start-up nonprofits. Their purpose is not simply to do “good works,” but also to build the capacity of the organizations that promote social change.

At its best, service is not make-work but what Harry Boyte and Nancy Kari, in Building America, have called “public work.” It is work that “is visible, open to inspection, whose significance is widely recognized” and can be carried out by “a mix of people whose interests, backgrounds, and resources may be quite different.” Service as public work is the essence of the democratic project. It solves common problems and creates common things. Public work entails not altruism, or not only altruism, but enlightened self-interest—a desire to build a society in which the serving citizen wants to live.

It is possible to be cynical about the new call to service. It can be a terribly convenient way for politicians to seem to be calling for sacrifice without demanding much of citizens. At little cost to themselves, advocates of both conservative and liberal individualism can use service to shroud their real intentions in the decent drapery of community feeling. Service, badly conceived, can distance citizens from public problems. Those who serve can help people “out there,” as if the problems “they” have are disconnected from the society in which the server lives. The sociologist Michael Schudson has argued that President Bush’s ideal citizen is a “Rotarian, moved by a sense of neighborliness, Christian charity, and social responsibility, but untouched by having a personal stake in public justice.” His point is not to knock Rotarians. It’s to argue that self-interest in pursuit of justice is a virtue. As Schudson notes in describing the civil rights movement, the most dramatic expansion of democracy and citizenship in our lifetime was brought about by citizens “driven not by a desire to serve but by an effort to overcome indignities they themselves have suffered.”

It’s an important point. But it’s also true that Rotarians are good citizens. Neighborliness, charity, and social responsibility are genuine virtues. It is both good and useful to assert, as Rabbi Chaim of Volozhin did, that “my neighbor’s material needs are my spiritual needs.” It’s just possible that a nation responding to the call to service would, over time, become a nation deeply engaged in questions of public justice.

The debate over national service is a debate over how we Americans think of ourselves. It’s a debate over how we will solve public problems and what we owe our country and each other. If our nation is to continue to prosper, it’s a debate we will have in every generation. For if we decide there are no public things to which we are willing to pledge some of our time and some of our effort—not to mention “our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor”—then we will have quietly abandoned our nation’s experiment in liberty rooted in mutual assistance and democratic aspiration.

Governance Studies

Nicol Turner Lee, Dominique Duval-Diop

April 22, 2024

Belinda Archibong, Peter Blair Henry

April 18, 2024

Camille Busette, Keon L. Gilbert, Gabriel R. Sanchez, Kwadwo Frimpong, Carly Bennett

March 28, 2024

Mandatory Military Service: Pros and Cons Essay

Introduction, pros of mandatory military service, cons of mandatory military service, necessity of compulsory military service.

The United States does not have mandatory military service. The last time the U.S. had a draft was during the Vietnam War, from 1940-1973 (Cohen, 2019, p. 23). The issue of mandatory military service has long been a topic of debate. Proponents assert that it instills discipline, develops leadership skills, and creates a sense of patriotism. Opponents, however, argue that it infringes upon individual rights and freedoms, and can be financially burdensome. Thus, it is crucial to consider the pros and cons of compulsory military service and to consider whether it is necessary.

It is important to emphasize the primary benefits that the armed forces can receive if military service is introduced as compulsory. One of the main benefits of mandatory military service is that it instills discipline and fosters a sense of responsibility. Military training is designed to break down the individual and build them back up as a member of a team. Therefore, this process teaches recruits how to follow orders, take responsibility for their actions, and work effectively with others (Griffith & Ben-Ari, 2021). The experience can help young people develop important life skills, including self-discipline and self-confidence, which can be useful in their personal and professional lives.

Mandatory military service can also help to develop leadership skills. Military training emphasizes the importance of leadership, and all recruits are given opportunities to practice leadership skills (Griffith & Ben-Ari, 2021). This can be particularly beneficial for young people who may not have had many opportunities to take on leadership roles in their lives. Additionally, the military provides extensive leadership training to its personnel, which can prepare them for leadership positions in civilian life. Another argument in favor of mandatory military service is that it creates a sense of patriotism and national unity (Griffith & Ben-Ari, 2021). Serving in the military can instill a sense of pride in one’s country and help young people understand the sacrifices that have been made to preserve our freedom. By requiring all citizens to serve in the military, a sense of national unity can be fostered, as people from all walks of life come together to serve their country.

Meanwhile, there are disadvantages that may emerge if military service is made mandatory. One of the most common arguments against compulsory military service is that it violates individual rights and freedoms (Puhani & Sterrenberg, 2022). Citizens should have the right to choose whether they want to serve in the army or not. Forcing someone to perform against their will can be seen as violating their fundamental rights. Moreover, compulsory military service can also be financially burdensome. The costs of training and equipping conscripts can be significant, and these costs are ultimately borne by taxpayers (Puhani & Sterrenberg, 2022). In addition, military service can disrupt the lives of young people who may be pursuing their education or starting a career. It would be unjust to force them to interrupt their lives to serve in the army. Another argument opposing compulsory military service is that it can create a binary society (Puhani & Sterrenberg, 2022). Those who are unable or unwilling to serve in the military may be seen as second-class citizens. This can create social tension and resentment between those who have served and those who have not.

The question of whether mandatory military service is necessary is a complex one. On the one hand, mandatory military service can have many benefits, including developing discipline and leadership skills, and fostering a sense of patriotism and national unity. On the other hand, it can be seen as an infringement on individual rights and freedoms, and can be financially burdensome (Cohen, 2019). Ultimately, the question of the relevance of compulsory military service depends on the perspective from which one considers it. If some people consider that it is crucial to instill discipline and patriotism in young individuals, then mandatory military service may be perceived as necessary. If one believes that individual rights and freedoms should take precedence, then compulsory military service may be viewed as unnecessary. Furthermore, if compulsory military service is to be introduced, it is important to ensure that it is fairly and non-discriminatorily enforced (Cohen, 2019). It is also critical to provide support for those who may experience financial or personal hardship as a result of their service.

Hence, the issue of mandatory military service is a contentious one, with arguments for and against it. Proponents argue that it instills discipline, develops leadership skills, and creates a sense of patriotism, while opponents argue that it infringes upon individual rights and freedoms, and can be financially burdensome. Whether or not mandatory military service is necessary depends on one’s perspective. Ultimately, it is for each individual to decide whether they consider compulsory military service necessary or not. However, it is important to consider the potential benefits and drawbacks of mandatory military service when making this decision.

Cohen, E. A. (2019). Citizens and soldiers: The dilemmas of military service . Cornell University Press.

Griffith, J., & Ben-Ari, E. (2021). Reserve military service: A social constructionist perspective . Armed Forces & Society, 47 (4), 635-660. Web.

Puhani, P. A., & Sterrenberg, M. K. (2022). Effects of mandatory military and alternative community service on wages and other socioeconomic outcomes . Kyklos, 75 (3), 488-507. Web.

Chicago (A-D)
Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2024, March 3). Mandatory Military Service: Pros and Cons. https://ivypanda.com/essays/mandatory-military-service-pros-and-cons/

"Mandatory Military Service: Pros and Cons." IvyPanda , 3 Mar. 2024, ivypanda.com/essays/mandatory-military-service-pros-and-cons/.

IvyPanda . (2024) 'Mandatory Military Service: Pros and Cons'. 3 March.

IvyPanda . 2024. "Mandatory Military Service: Pros and Cons." March 3, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/mandatory-military-service-pros-and-cons/.

1. IvyPanda . "Mandatory Military Service: Pros and Cons." March 3, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/mandatory-military-service-pros-and-cons/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Mandatory Military Service: Pros and Cons." March 3, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/mandatory-military-service-pros-and-cons/.

Alzheimer’s Disease Prevalence and Prevention
Whether a College Degree Should Be Mandatory for Police Recruits
Termination of Life Support. Ethical Issues.
Inspiration From Sarbanes-Oxley Act
The Problem of Patriotism Analysis
Patient's Life in a Vegetative State
Comparative Politics in Compulsory Politics
Boeing Aerospace Support's Business Excellence Model
"The Language of Healthcare Reform" by Larry Levitt
The Effects of Student Loans
Operation Anaconda: Events and Tactical Framework
Operation Popeye and Operation Commando Lava
Physical and Procedural Controls for Protecting Assets
Communication Challenges in the US Army
V-2 Rocket and Its Impact on World War II and Today US Army

The Case for Mandatory National Service

In the 2022-23 academic year, Stanford freshmen will be required to take a ‘COLLEGE’ class that aims to teach citizenship and foster civic values among undergraduates. I am skeptical that citizenship is something that can be taught in a classroom. Forcing professors to impart the importance of citizenship onto students violates the principles of exploration and non-indoctrination. Even if professors were able to convince students about the virtues of citizenship, over a third of Stanford students are from California, meaning the diversity of our nation will not be properly represented in student discussion within citizenship classes.

As an alternative to teaching citizenship, I propose the implementation of a national service requirement for all American citizens once they turn eighteen. A national service requirement is the best way to teach citizenship to young Americans because they will work with their community, for their community.

This ‘national service’ would not be a draft: service would not be limited to military service (although military service would be an option), and all 18-year-olds would be required to work. Students could fulfill the requirement in a variety of ways: working on infrastructure, assisting teachers and doctors in underfunded American schools and hospitals, and working on national parks. These programs could be modeled on AmeriCorps or Teach for America, two highly successful programs that promote public service for young adults.

A larger, united American community must be cultivated amidst the greatest political polarization seen in the United States since the Civil War. In national service programs, eighteen-year-olds from all states and demographics will be required to work together, put aside their differences, and learn to tolerate one another. The dark cloud of political polarization threatens the political cohesion of young people. Traditional civics curricula are not sufficient to unite a fracturing country, especially because the curricula themselves have become the subject of seemingly endless political debates in recent elections.

Those who are most in need of civic education are the least likely to seek it out as they have not internalized values of civic engagement. By making national service mandatory, all young people will reap the benefits. Young people in national service programs will largely be working on tangible issues rather than abstract debates, meaning that they will see their peers as peers, rather than as a caricatured enemy.

Cultivating an understanding that people of different groups and identity markers can work together will demonstrate the purpose of a diverse community such as the United States. Only then can any meaningful civic engagement begin. Research has found that Americans who have completed national service programs as young adults are more civically engaged than their peers who have not. This interest in national service—and serving the country at large—is especially pertinent given the national labor shortage , low voter turnout , and falling support for democracy .

As participants in a mandatory national service program progress in their careers and have children, they will develop a community oriented mindset that promotes civic engagement and democracy.

It is dangerous to put the blame for our failing democracy onto politicians alone. Without a meaningful civic education system that brings Americans of all backgrounds together and forces them to collaborate and truly understand differences, our country will only continue to delve deeper into polarization. Fewer engaged Americans means a lack of accountability for our representatives.

Asking a young person to support a mandated national service program is to ask them to give away some of the most important time of their life. But, it is an ask that is necessary to achieve full political cohesion: robust studies have shown that both individuals and nations profit once national service programs are implemented.

Critics argue that national service programs are immoral because they coerce young people. However, the government necessitates we pay taxes and serve on juries as a way to improve the health of our democracy. A national service program would also be non-discriminatory: children of billionaires and senators will have to work alongside their less-fortunate peers. Time is the best way we can pay back all that our democracy has given us, and I hope that a national service program can help young people serve their country and normalize the ideals of civic participation.

Is Mandatory Military Service Good for a Country?

A prescribed period of civic service may offer benefits, promoting active citizenship across the socioeconomic divide and creating strong social ties.

Soldiers training in the Israeli Defense Forces

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.

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 is clear that his support for mandatory military service by no means reflects a support of the draft. “It is hard to see how a reasonable person could prefer that fatally flawed system to today’s arrangements,” he writes, noting that the the idea of universal service would be to promote active citizenship across socioeconomic differences.

The French populace seems to agree . Although there’s 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.

Europe is unarguably divided, and France is shouldering an increasingly heavy burden in keeping the European Union tied together. A sense of community and solidarity will be critical in carrying the nation through the years to come. It seems that Macron’s ultimate goal is to create stronger social ties between individual members of France’s youth despite their different backgrounds, an idea shared by Galston.

“I do not want to oversell the civic benefits that might accrue from a universal service lottery. Still, enhanced contact between the sons and daughters of the privileged upper middle class and the rest of society would represent real progress,” writes Galston, continuing: “Moreover, some of our nation’s best social scientists see a link between World War II-era military service and that generation’s productive dedication to our postwar civic life. If implementing my proposal could yield even a fraction of these civic dividends, it would be worth the price.”

JSTOR is a digital library for scholars, researchers, and students. JSTOR Daily readers can access the original research behind our articles for free on JSTOR.

Get Our Newsletter

Get your fix of JSTOR Daily’s best stories in your inbox each Thursday.

Confucius in the European Enlightenment

Viewing the projection of a solar eclipse using a colander

Watching an Eclipse from Prison

Support JSTOR Daily

Share full article

Supported by

student opinion

Should National Service Be Required for All Young Americans?

Do you think that serving your country — for example, by working with children or training for emergencies — should be mandatory?

By Nicole Daniels

Find all our Student Opinion questions here.

In Ghana , all young adults who graduate from an accredited university, college or trade school must complete one year of service in agriculture, health, education, local government or rural development.

France recently began a trial period of a new national service program that seeks to unite young French people and teach them practical skills, from first aid and rescue skills to conservation.

And in the United States, the former Democratic presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg proposed to expand voluntary public service programs , while also creating new ones focused on combating climate change, treating mental health and addiction, and providing care for older people.

Do you think all young adults should have the opportunity to participate in a public service program upon graduating high school or college, either in the military or in a civic organization? Should they be required to do so? What kind of service would they have to complete? For how long? And, would they be paid for their work?

David Brooks writes about this topic in the Op-Ed “ We Need National Service. Now. ”:

There is now a vast army of young people ready and yearning to serve their country. There are college graduates emerging into a workplace that has few jobs for them. There are more high school graduates who suddenly can’t afford college. There are college students who don’t want to return to a college experience. This is a passionate, idealistic generation that sees the emergency, wants to serve those around them and groans to live up to this moment. Suddenly there is a wealth of work for them to do: contact tracing, sanitizing public places, bringing food to the hungry, supporting the elderly, taking temperatures at public gathering spots, supporting local government agencies, tutoring elementary school students so they can make up for lost time.

The Op-Ed discusses a bill put forward in the Senate by Chris Coons, a Democrat from Delaware:

As a young man, Coons launched one of the first AmeriCorps programs, leading 150 members in 15 cities who tutored students in inner-city schools. Later, he created another AmeriCorps program with a local volunteer fire department in Delaware. “It was the most inspiring thing I’ve ever been a part of,” Coons told me. His bill would double the current number of AmeriCorps volunteers in its first year, from 75,000 to 150,000. Then for years two and three it would double the number again, to 300,000. It would also increase AmeriCorps stipends, which are now as low as $15,000 a year, so the volunteers can have a living wage. The Coons bill is an excellent start. But it needs to be bigger and bipartisan. Under AmeriCorps, the federal government provides money for the volunteers, matched by private funding. State commissions supervise most programs, and the volunteers work through nonprofits and local agencies. The downside is that the big, well-established nonprofits have a significant advantage when it comes to receiving AmeriCorps volunteers. There are a lot of great smaller organizations that just don’t have the organizational infrastructure to take part. There are many parts of the country, especially in rural America, where volunteers are relatively thin on the ground. National service has never had confident bipartisan support because Republicans don’t have constant contact with volunteers in their own districts.

The Op-Ed continues:

And as we all know, the benefits of the program accrue not only to those being served but also to those doing the serving. What would it mean to the future social cohesion of this country if a large part of the rising generation had a common experience of shared sacrifice? What would it mean to our future politics if young people from Berkeley spent a year working side by side with young people from Boise, Birmingham and Baton Rouge? On the other hand, has any nation prospered that did not encourage in each new generation the habits of work, the taste for adventure, a sense of duty and a call to be of use to neighbors and the world? We Americans suck at regimentation and blindly following orders from the top down. But we’re pretty good at local initiative, youthful dynamism and decentralized civic action. We need a Covid response that fits the kind of people we are. National service is an essential piece of that response.

Students, read the entire Op-Ed , then tell us:

Do you agree with David Brooks, the writer of the Op-Ed, that the United States should greatly expand national service programs for young adults? Why?

Should a national service program be mandatory? For example, should high school or college graduates be required to serve one year of national service in the military or in a civic organization? Do you believe that mandatory national service would create a sense of patriotism or national unity? Or, would it be undemocratic? What might be other advantages and disadvantages of requiring national service?

Have you done any volunteer or community service work? Was the community service required by your school? What was your experience like?

In the comments section of Mr. Brooks’s Op-Ed, many Times readers did not think that young people should have to make substantially less money doing national service. How do you think people participating in a national service program should be paid?

Mr. Brooks argues that the current coronavirus pandemic is an example of when national service could be useful. How do you think young adults could serve the country right now?

Students 13 and older are invited to comment. All comments are moderated by the Learning Network staff, but please keep in mind that once your comment is accepted, it will be made public.

Nicole Daniels joined The Learning Network as a staff editor in 2019 after working in museum education, curriculum writing and bilingual education. More about Nicole Daniels

Argument: To Save Democracy, America Needs a Mandatory Public Service Program

Create an FP account to save articles to read later and in the FP mobile app.

ALREADY AN FP SUBSCRIBER? LOGIN

World Brief

Editors’ Picks
Africa Brief

China Brief

Latin America Brief

South Asia Brief

Situation report.

Flash Points
War in Ukraine
Israel and Hamas
U.S.-China competition
Biden's foreign policy
Trade and economics
Artificial intelligence
Asia & the Pacific
Middle East & Africa

Fareed Zakaria on an Age of Revolutions

Ones and tooze, foreign policy live.

Spring 2024 Issue

Print Archive

FP Analytics

In-depth Special Reports
Issue Briefs
Power Maps and Interactive Microsites
FP Simulations & PeaceGames
Graphics Database

From Resistance to Resilience

The atlantic & pacific forum, principles of humanity under pressure, fp global health forum 2024, fp security forum.

By submitting your email, you agree to the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use and to receive email correspondence from us. You may opt out at any time.

Your guide to the most important world stories of the day

Essential analysis of the stories shaping geopolitics on the continent

The latest news, analysis, and data from the country each week

Weekly update on what’s driving U.S. national security policy

Evening roundup with our editors’ favorite stories of the day

One-stop digest of politics, economics, and culture

Weekly update on developments in India and its neighbors

A curated selection of our very best long reads

To Save Democracy, America Needs a Mandatory Public Service Program

An ambitious program for young americans could help heal the country’s divides..

United States

Polarization in the United States is well-trodden ground. As the media reminds us every day, the nation has become deeply divided and politically dysfunctional: People in blue states don’t talk to those in red states or even live in the same reality; social classes rarely mix; and social, political, and academic tribalism reign supreme. But no one has seriously considered what could be a genuinely transformative solution: a mandatory national service program.

It’s become increasingly apparent that something visionary and ambitious will be required for Americans to heal their democracy and transcend their divides. A program of mandatory national service, if designed effectively, would bring together young Americans from across the country and all socioeconomic groups to work on public interest projects and accomplish common goals for the good of the country. The public services a program along these lines could provide are virtually limitless: They could include tutoring and mentoring; participating in after-school enrichment programs; improving environmental conservation; building public housing; organizing youth networks; providing real-time information during natural disasters; assisting small businesses through outreach to young consumers; and helping in the construction, rehabilitation, and maintenance of public parks and facilities.

Essentially, participants would provide much-needed public services and, in return, receive significant benefits, including covered college or trade school tuition and living expenses, that would lessen the country’s socioeconomic divide. In doing so, they would interact with Americans from other communities, gain life skills, and transform their own futures—and that of the country itself. There is a precedent for a similarly visionary, transformative, and generous program: the GI Bill passed near the end of World War II that gave millions of Americans returning from the war a free education and a ticket to the middle class. If the U.S. Congress did it then, it can do it now.

Although some may think this idea is unrealistic, public service programs have been gaining serious attention in Washington in recent years. In 2016, Congress passed a National Defense Authorization Act that called for the creation of a temporary federal agency—the National Commission on Military, National, and Public Service—to conduct a review of the military selective service process and “consider methods to increase participation in military, national, and public service to address national security and other public needs of the United States.” The commission’s final report , issued in March 2020, observed that “the current moment requires a collective effort to build upon America’s spirit of service to cultivate a widespread culture of service.”

The commission focused its proposals on existing programs of voluntary public service, such as AmeriCorps and the Peace Corps. It recommended expanding these and other existing programs, which historically have not attracted many volunteers. For example, AmeriCorps has approximately 75,000 volunteers and the Peace Corps has 7,300. The commission recommended making Americans more aware of opportunities to serve and increasing the “value, flexibility, and use of service incentives.” Current incentives include Segal AmeriCorps Education Awards, which provide some education benefits for those who participate in certain programs. But these awards are modest, taxable to the beneficiaries, and paid directly to educational institutions, so the commission recommended Congress increase benefits to participants.

The issue also came up in the 2020 Democratic presidential primaries. When now-Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg was running for the nomination in 2019, he proposed expanding volunteerism , observing that young Americans shouldn’t have to enter the military to serve their country. He recommended adding new programs, increasing volunteers to 1 million people by 2026, and providing services in predominantly minority and rural communities. In return, participants would be eligible for debt relief under the existing Public Service Loan Forgiveness program. The estimated cost of the program was $20 billion over 10 years.

Neither the commission nor Buttigieg proposed that programs be mandatory, perhaps believing it was politically unrealistic. Perhaps many more Americans would indeed serve if current proposals were adopted, but the stakes are too high to take this chance. Instead, the country needs a mandatory service program.

America Needs a National Service Draft Now to Fight the Coronavirus

Nations have always mobilized young people when facing existential crises like war. The case for national service has never been clearer.

U.S. Allies Relieved After Senate Passes Long-Delayed Aid Bill

But the fact it took so long to pass has some worried about future support.

Does Trump Have a Foreign-Policy Vision?

A new book lays claim to interpreting the former president’s global legacy—and has a plan for what a second term could accomplish.

The idea of mandatory civilian service is not unprecedented. Countries such as Denmark, Nigeria, and Germany have had such programs at various points over the past few decades. French President Emmanuel Macron has also called for the creation of such a program. Then there is military conscription, which the United States has relied on to protect its national security six times in history. Since every male U.S. citizen between the ages of 18 and 25 must register with the Selective Service System, the system for a military or other draft is still in place.

Despite these precedents, it admittedly would be a great challenge to design and sell a mandatory public service program due to the United States’ current political environment. An essential first step is to remind Americans of the precedents for such service and to sell the program as a solution to the country’s greatest challenges: partisan divides, alienation, lack of public services, economic inequality, dwindling economic opportunity, and the threat polarization poses to national security. To achieve this, the program would need to have several characteristics.

First, it would have to be mandatory for all Americans between the ages of 18 and 24. A voluntary program likely wouldn’t achieve the geographic and socioeconomic intermingling necessary to bridge the country’s partisan and other divides. (Privileged Americans, in particular, would likely opt out.) The program could be phased in over a defined period of time, perhaps by beginning with a robust voluntary approach, but it ultimately should be mandatory.

Second, the work opportunities should be designed to help inform and facilitate participants’ career goals as much as possible. This would allow participants to develop real-life skills in their areas of interest. The objective would be balancing this with the need to push participants outside of their comfort zones: That might look like, for instance, letting a participant choose their area of focus but not their geographic location or vice versa.

Third, post-program educational benefits, including tuition and living expenses for trade schools and universities, must be substantial. This would not only make education more accessible but also provide assistance to struggling colleges and universities, which will be facing future enrollment challenges due to declining birth rates and the COVID-19 pandemic. The drop off has already begun, according to a recent report , which cites a 5 percentage point reduction in enrollment from 2014-2015 to 2018-2019, including 200,000 fewer Black students. (Those who have not completed high school could also be placed in programs where they earn a GED during their service.)

Whatever the costs would prove to be, the country cannot afford not to pay them.

Fourth, the program should be designed to minimize disruption in participants’ lives. Service could begin after high school graduation (or earlier for those who wish), and individuals could be allowed deferrals for good causes. Importantly, participants could be allowed to work or go to school while fulfilling the program requirements as long as the programs’ principle objectives were achieved. Service would be for a fixed period of one or two years, which allows personal lives to resume without great sacrifice.

Of course, opposition to a mandatory program can be expected. Some would argue Americans should have the right to decide what’s in their own self-interest without government interference—and thus should not be required to participate. But this line of thinking, of prioritizing the rights of citizenship over its obligations, is one of the main reasons the program is needed in the first place. Washington can’t allow past to be prologue if it’s to lessen the country’s divides.

Opposition by fiscal conservatives in particular can be expected, as they would likely claim that such a program is unaffordable. Although the program’s exact costs would need to be assessed, a rough estimate can be made based on Buttigieg’s proposed program of 1 million participants, whose price tag was $20 billion over 10 years, including some loan forgiveness. There are around 30 million Americans ages 18 to 24. Assuming 1 in 7 people would enter the program in any given year, the annual total participation for a one-year program would be around 4 million individuals, four times the number in Buttigieg’s proposed program. Thus, a mandatory program would be approximately $80 billion over the same 10-year period. By comparison, over that 10-year period, the Head Start Program—the federal program that provides child development services for low-income families—will cost approximately $100 billion at the rate it’s currently funded. Of course, educational expenses would add to a mandatory public service program’s price tag.

But whatever the costs would prove to be, the country cannot afford not to pay them. And the government doesn’t have to do it alone. Although Buttigieg was right to see the nation’s divisions as a national security issue when he called for a National Security Council position to oversee his proposed program, the private sector also has a role to play. Indeed, the private sector has contributed greatly to the country’s divisions as many businesses have failed to share the economic benefits of their recent growth with their workers. This has resulted in income inequality and wage stagnation that ironically also threaten to harm businesses in the future by reducing the size of their markets. Thus, the private sector has much to gain from a mandatory public service program. It should join hands with the government to ensure its success by developing projects that would satisfy the program’s objectives and provide job training for tomorrow’s workforce. This would also have the effect of helping to sell the program to more fiscally conservative legislators.

Designed along the above lines, a mandatory public service program would go far to reducing divides between red and blue states and those grounded in political orientation, race, ethnicity, and gender as well as help assimilate new citizens and immigrants. It also would provide educational benefits to more young Americans, expose them to places with greater economic opportunity and diversity, and position them for future success.

Meanwhile, the program would contribute to the country’s future by building and maintaining public housing, infrastructure, and amenities. It would bring much-needed projects to urban and rural America, much as the Works Progress Administration did during the Great Depression, when it built airports, post offices, court houses, dams, parks, and other public facilities across the country. These projects changed the face of the United States and remain some of the country’s most cherished and visited sites. Today’s participants could provide similar services that support the efforts undertaken by federal, state, and local governments, including those under the Biden administration’s proposed infrastructure bill, which has bipartisan support and is on the doorstep of passage.

Given the domestic and international challenges ahead, the American people will need to collaborate to build a safe, prosperous, and sustainable future. The current partisan divide threatens to make such collective action difficult. It’s time for the United States to create a mandatory national service program to help Americans build the future they want—together.

David L. Carden served as the first resident U.S. ambassador to the Association of Southeast Asian Nations. He is the author of Mapping ASEAN: Achieving Peace, Prosperity, and Sustainability in Southeast Asia and has written for Foreign Policy , Politico , the SAIS Review of International Affairs , the Guardian , and the South China Morning Post , among others.

Join the Conversation

Commenting on this and other recent articles is just one benefit of a Foreign Policy subscription.

Already a subscriber? Log In .

Subscribe Subscribe

View Comments

Join the conversation on this and other recent Foreign Policy articles when you subscribe now.

Not your account? Log out

Please follow our comment guidelines , stay on topic, and be civil, courteous, and respectful of others’ beliefs.

Change your username:

I agree to abide by FP’s comment guidelines . (Required)

Confirm your username to get started.

The default username below has been generated using the first name and last initial on your FP subscriber account. Usernames may be updated at any time and must not contain inappropriate or offensive language.

Sign up for Editors' Picks

A curated selection of fp’s must-read stories..

You’re on the list! More ways to stay updated on global news:

Will Washington Sanction Sudan’s RSF?

U.k. passes controversial rwanda deportation bill, ukraine is still outgunned by russia, does china have to play by the rules, editors’ picks.

1 The Iran-Israel War Is Just Getting Started
2 Is the U.S. Preparing to Ban Future LNG Sales to China?
3 The Strategic Unseriousness of Olaf Scholz
4 Ukraine Is Still Outgunned by Russia
5 New Zealand Becomes the Latest Country to Pivot to the U.S.

Ukraine, Israel, Indo-Pacific Aid Bill Passes U.S. Senate

U.k. parliament passes controversial rwanda asylum deportation bill, ukraine artillery shortage to persist even if u.s. aid package passes congress, chinese olympic swimmers exposed in doping scandal, more from foreign policy, arab countries have israel’s back—for their own sake.

Last weekend’s security cooperation in the Middle East doesn’t indicate a new future for the region.

Forget About Chips—China Is Coming for Ships

Beijing’s grab for hegemony in a critical sector follows a familiar playbook.

‘The Regime’ Misunderstands Autocracy

HBO’s new miniseries displays an undeniably American nonchalance toward power.

Washington’s Failed Africa Policy Needs a Reset

Instead of trying to put out security fires, U.S. policy should focus on governance and growth.

The Strategic Unseriousness of Olaf Scholz

The iran-israel war is just getting started, new zealand becomes the latest country to pivot to the u.s., is the u.s. preparing to ban future lng sales to china.

FP’s flagship evening newsletter guiding you through the most important world stories of the day, written by Alexandra Sharp . Delivered weekdays.

6 Reasons Why National Service Is Important

National service is when a country drafts people into their armed forces during peace time. It is compulsory in many nations for young people to have to complete a period of military service. Dozens of countries around the world have national service. In countries that don’t, such as the United States, UK, Germany and Italy, a debate is often had about introducing it. But why is national service actually important? Let us explain…

1. National Service Can Bolster A Country’s Defences

A first reason why national service is important is because it increases the size of a country’s defence forces.

National service means that citizens of a country must complete a compulsory period of time in the military. This can range from a couple of months to several years.

Almost all countries that have national service it is only men who must attend. However, in some countries, such as Israel, both men and women must complete time in the military. National service is often done between the ages of 18 and 30. In some countries all young people must do national service, in others only those who do not attend university must complete military service.

When young people complete national service , they receive military training. National service can be important for a country because it increases the numbers in their armed forces. It also ensures large parts of their population are able to fight if a war should come.

Most countries that have national service require citizens to attend refresher trainings up until a certain age. This means that large parts of their populations remain able to be drafted back into the military if a war should occur. This is another important aspect of national service.

National service increases the size of a country’s military. It also increases the defence capabilities of a nation and means its population are more ready to fight if the nation should go to war. This is why it is important.

2. It Teaches Young People Valuable Skills

A second reason why national service is important is because it teaches young people valuable skills.

National service provides citizens of a country with military training. However, as well as being taught how to march, shoot, maintain equipment and train physically, national service also teaches a range of vocational skills to young people. Many people who do national service learn skills such as mechanics, engineering, logistics, construction and driving heavy-goods vehicles. Practical skills such as these can be massively beneficial to young people.

National service allows a country’s citizens to learn vocational skills in real world contexts, not only in college classrooms. This is a major reason why it is important.

As well as teaching young people practical skills , national service is important because it trains young people in valuable areas such as teamwork, leadership, initiative, problem solving and dealing with stress. Gaining experience in areas such as these from a young age can have lasting effect on people.

Many of those that complete national service use the knowledge and skills they gain later in their careers. This is a key reason why it is important.

3. It Helps Build Character In Young People

A third reason why national service is important is because it builds character in young people.

National service is challenging. Military training is often physically and mentally difficult and requires people to push their limits. Doing national services forces young people out of their comfort zones. Many young people live comfortable modern lives but national service forces them to experience hardships, difficulties, and uncomfortable conditions. This builds character and is a big reason why national service is important.

When young people have completed national service, they are often changed by the experience. The fortitude and grit they get by overcoming the challenges that military services puts them through gives them a positive attitude when facing future difficulties in their careers or personal life. This is one reason why national service is important.

National service is seen by many as being character building. Ensuring young people have experienced that push them means they are less suspectable to pressure. It also means they can better appreciate the comfortable lives they have.

4. National Service Helps To Unite A Country

Another reason why national service is important is because it helps unite a country.

National service is often obligatory for all male (and sometimes female) citizens of a country when they become a certain age. There are usually very few ways to avoid national service. Countries that face clear military threats, such as Israel, South Korea and the island of Taiwan, hold national service in high regard as it is key to their national defences.

The fact almost everyone has to do national service makes it a unifying institution. It brings people together from all backgrounds, religious groups, ethnicities, and regions of the country and gives them a common purpose and experience. This is a big reason why national service is important.

National service is also important because it can be used to instil traditions, culture, history, and ethics into all young people of a country. Although schools and colleges often focus on areas such as these, the practical aspects of military service connect young people with the country’s past, as well as highlights the sacrifices previous generations have made to build the nation.

Many people see national service as a strong unifying factor for a country, and this is why it is important in many nations.

5. National Service Ensures People Give Back To Their Nation

A further reason why national service is important is because it makes sure people give back to their nation.

National service requires a degree of sacrifice. Young people must give up their time, often several years. They also must complete mentally and physically difficult military training whilst living in often uncomfortable environments. In countries with national service there are usually very few people who are exempt.

Although national service is a sacrifice for young people, it is important because it makes them give back to their countries. Nation states provide security, economic benefits, education, healthcare, political participation, and an identity to their people. However, in order to survive, and thrive, nations often need their citizens to make sacrifices for them. Many previous generations made enormous sacrifices to build the nation’s most people live in today. National service is important because it continues this legacy of giving back to a nation.

Many people say that national service is favoured by people who are too old to do it. This is especially the case when countries are debating whether to introduce national service. However, one reason why national service is important is because it ensures citizens of a country spend some time working for the greater good of their nation.

6. It Makes The Government And Military More Accountable

A final reason why national service is important is because it makes a county’s government, and military, more accountable.

In countries with national service, drafting young people into the armed forces is done by law. People who do not comply can be fined or jailed. However, one advantage of this is that it makes young people more engaged with politics as different political parties often take different approaches to the use of conscription.

Another reason why national service is important is because it connects a country’s citizens with their military. If almost everyone in a country has a member of their family or friends in the armed forces, this means going to war has a greater impact on the country’s population as a whole. This makes a government much more accountable to their people.

National service also makes a country’s military more accountable. In nations without national service, few people are directly connected to the armed forces. However, national service means that huge numbers of people within a country either have been in the military or know someone who is. National service is important for a country because it connects a its people to their armed forces, and visa versa.

Global Affairs Explained

Global Affairs Explained is an ongoing project aiming to provide concise guides to world events. Focusing on international relations, history, and geo-politics, Global Affairs Explained uses original research and data to answer questions often not covered by traditional media.

Mandatory National Service

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

Selective military draft.

Despite the fact that there were previous war military drafts in the United States, the first peace draft was sanctioned by Congress in 1940. Later, the draft was deferred in 1973 when the United States transformed to an all-volunteer military and finally, through a Presidential Proclamation, draft registration requirement was dismissed in 1975 but later renewed in 1980. Currently, the Selective Service System, together with the draft registration and local draft panels, remains as a contingency should a military draft ever be necessary, but the country has no active military draft at this time. The military draft requires that almost all male U.S. citizens and foreign male living in the United States who are between 18 to 25 years register with the Selective Service (Tritten). The senate has the power to redefine the qualified persons as it deems suitable. Presently the excluded group of people are the men who are already serving on active military duty, certain institutionalized people, and other noncitizens. The general rule, according to Tritten, is that any male noncitizen who migrates into the United States before his 26th birthday must register with the Selective Service. The exempted ones are the men who live in the…

Should The United States Should Be Able To Serve In The Military

I do not believe that the United States should institute in the practice of requiring people to serve in the military. While it would be very loyal to the United States, I think people should have the rights to choose their own career and not be forced into something they have no interest in. Also with so many people being forced into the military for one or more years, other jobs would not have people to fill up positions, important jobs such as police officers, doctors, teachers, or even people in entertainment. Which would really change up the economy.…

Essay On Military Draft

The controversy surrounding the military draft has since its inception to its repeal in the nineteen-seventies; however the vitality of the draft remains because United States may need more than a volunteer army, it requires everyone to serve, and higher trained and educated people are needed to run new technology. The first reason is the military may need more than a volunteer army to defend the nation in a national emergency. In the U.S. constitution the government has the right the raise and maintains an army as long as the conflict is still going on. The draft was then repealed but is still in effect. The last reason the U.S. may need more than a volunteer army is because the United States may need it to maintain the security of the nation. The second reason the United States needs the draft is because everyone needs to serve their country. Every male eighteen to twenty-six must register for the draft because it is still a law even since it was repealed. It offers a lot of benefits to those who comply to the laws if the draft is used. There are very severe penalties for not registering at age eighteen. This may be considered not a draft even though they must register at eighteen. Not all American males will be drafted for many different reasons. Would the new draft require women to register also? The third reason…

Should Citizens Refuse To Serve In The Military

Should citizens have the right to refuse to serve in the armed forces? The first military draft began in the year 1940. This occurred when president Roosevelt signed the selective training and service act. There were a total of 10 million men ''selected''. 10 million men who were chosen. These men had to go, they weren't there intentionally. I believe that citizens should have to right to refuse to serve in the armed forces because it can be very dangerous, traumatic, and against religious beliefs.…

Assignment 1: Research Topics with Explanation

Should the federal government require mandatory service for all citizens between the ages of 18 and 35? I selected this topic primarily because we were just discussing this last semester. The fairness of this question is faulty, and this is due to the civil rights we enjoy as Americans. In order for the government to require mandatory service, the Supreme Court would have to make a ruling on its Constitutional bearing. This mandatory requirement would affect all generations, not just the current generation, and it should be to up to each generation to serve willingly.…

Persuasive Essay Over Selective Service

Eighteen is the age to celebrate by going to buy a lottery ticket, a pack of cigarettes, or registering to vote. These are just a few of the things that many of eighteen year olds do today. However, when a young man turns eighteen he has thirty days to sign up for selective services. This is an obligation young women do not have to participate in. People have different viewpoints of women signing up for the draft, and though it is easy to focus on the major differences of these viewpoints; there is compromise that could make these two sides focus on their similarities instead.…

Military Conscription Necessary In The United States?

Military conscription is the mandatory enlistment of civilians into some sort of national service, involving a form of service in an army. Using Singapore as an empirical example in this paper, I argue that military conscription is necessary for the survival of the state because in this anarchical and unpredictable international system, wars are inevitable, therefore conscription aids in building a plausible military deterrence force. Furthermore, military conscription is desirable to maintain political stability, which is a prerequisite to economic growth as well as a means of fostering social cohesion. In the context of Singapore, conscription takes the form of a two-years long national service stint for every 18-year-old male citizen and a reservist…

The Pros And Cons Of Conscription

Conscription, involuntary labor demanded by an established authority (Brown). Is it socially correct to force someone into military service, or should everyone be given a choice on what they want to do with their lives? Well in 1917, the Prime Minister of Canada, Sir Robert Borden, had promised Canadians that he would not introduce overseas conscription to citizens at any cost (Bain). Nevertheless in May 1917, Borden took back his promise and introduced the Military Services Act (Le Canada- A People’s History).…

Military Conscription (Persuasive Essay)

Conscription, or more boldly the draft, has not been in place for some thirty years. While some people cringe at the thought of reinstating the draft, others have different views. This short paper will speak of those different views and the reasons why conscription of military service may not be such a bad idea after all.…

Argumentative Essay: Everyone Should Serve In The Army

People will appreciate the people who served in the military more if they have to serve in the military. And it is a very honorable thing to serve in the military for our country. In other countries it is very honorable to serve in the military because you are risking your life for your country. Mandatory military service can also be good because it will keep other countries from attacking your country.…

Volunteering In The Military Research Paper

It defines volunteering as the effort made by anyone at no cost to the community motivated him to contribute to responsibility the institution that is working to provide social welfare (Alalehyana, 1984). Compulsory or national service, typically, the conscription once the study is completed; it serves recruits for a period ranging between one year and three years. Many states have used conscription in time of war, but a small number of countries used during periods of peace. In 1960 was a Peace Corps of developments in the United States, when President Lyndon Johnson to declare war in 1964 began to expand volunteer opportunities and continued for a number of decades. Although compulsory army is necessary for some countries to apply, volunteer…

Mandatory Public Service

A year working in the military service would make young adults feel proud to be an American. Citizens of the United States perceive the people working in the military as heroes, because that’s what they are, they make sure America is safe from outside and inside threats. However, not only soldiers are considered heroes, persons that work combating accidental or natural disasters are as well. Having a mandatory public service will make sure America has the people needed to combat disaster or enemies inside or outside of the country at any…

Idea and Specific Reasons

16. In many countries, citizens are required to serve in the military for a year or more. Do you believe the United States should institute a similar practice? Why or why not? Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer.…

The Importance Of Service In The US Military

Each year, for a multitude of reasons, more than 180,000 people enlist in the United States military and almost another 20,000 commission as officers (Jordan, 2014). Some cited reasons include life skills and experience, money for college, steady employment, or service to their country. Although this number may seem high, in reality, more than 71 percent of America’s youth would not qualify for entry into the military (Fitzgerald, 2014). In fact, the quality of potential military recruits that are accepted for service is at the highest it has been in over 40 years.…

The Importance Of Mandatory Service

My opinion in this situation is that mandatory service should not be required for all U.S. citizens before the age of 30, because people should be able to do what they want. America is a free counrty and that means we have the right to choose if we want to volunteer for community services or not. Mandatory services would turn generosity into obligation, like it says in the second passage, and also goes against our constitutional rights. Volunteering comes from the hearts of those who serve; not from those who do not wish to lend a helping hand. Mandatory service can also make a person stress if they aren't willing to volunteer.…

Against Mandatory National Service

Some may find that mandatory national service is taking away from those who love and aspire to volunteer. Although this may be the case for some, mandatory national service could also be a good thing. For example, people that are unemployed could use this as a source of a job or even just something to fill their time. What of the working Americans? Is it right for all citizens to be required the same amout of service? All citizens would have to be treated equally whatever the out come is to be. After all this is America we are talking about here. What of people's rights? Can the government actually force something like mandatory service? I believe that it is encrouching on our rights as free people to require a service that other Americans

Pros And Cons Of Conscription In Australia

In World War 1, all Australian soldier enlisted voluntarily. When the war first began, this was more than enough to support the war effort overseas. But, when the news of the casualties and conditions at war became known on the home front, the number of enlistments fell rapidly. Australia was under a lot of pressure from Britain to ensure that the promised number of men would be enlisted. Under a lot of stress, Prime Minister William Hughes came to the decision the hold a referendum to see if the people of Australia agreed or disagreed with conscription and compulsory service overseas.

Mandatory National Service

Should national service be mandatory for all Americans? No, Americans should not be required to perform any service they did not choose to do. In my opinion, all service should be optional and no one should be forced to do things they aren't comfortable with doing. I feel that if the government were to empose a mandatory national service on the American people, many would be upset with thier decision and rebel against it, ending in only conflict. It is said that "The United States was founded on our right to pursue happiness." If things were to become mandatory with no free will by the people, would there be any happiness to pursue at the end. I agree with the statement in passage 2 'The Heart of Service' "Large-scale mandatory service is

Against Reinstating the Military Draft Essay

Sure, the government makes us do all sorts of things: serve on juries, pay taxes, have a driver?s license. When the government requires possession of a driver?s license it is for our own security, to make sure that only those who are capable to drive are on the road. When we are being asked to serve on jury, it is for our interest as well. As a society, we get to take a part in a legal decision and make sure that justice is done in our country. Even the requirement to pay taxes eventually is for our interest. The tax money helps the government to do things for us as a society, such as financing culture events, helping elders and people in need. However, asking us to risk our lives for something that not all citizens believe worth fighting for is not in our interest. People should not be forced to enlist in the army, which is one reason why we should not reinstate the military draft. In other words, since we live in a country based on freedom, the government should not take away our right to decide if we want to fight or not. We should not be forced to fight a war. We should not be forced into the meat grinder and possibly killed

Should the United States have Mandatory Military Conscription?

5 Works Cited

Absolutely, positively, emphatically, unequivocally, without a doubt, NO! Not now, not ever! Well, maybe for one reason, in the event of an existential threat to our nation. Now that I have stated my opinion I will back this up with information from several studies providing evidence for continuing the worlds greatest all volunteer (entry) military force.

United States Adopt A Similar Type Of Policy Of Mandatory Conscription

Many countries require young people to serve two years of military service, and as we continue to have military conflicts across the world, some people have proposed that the united states adopt a similar type of policy of mandatory conscription. I believe that a two-year period of national service should be obligatory for all 18 year olds. It’ll help strengthen the character of youth, and will help increase the collective conscience of a nation and the restraint of leaders when considering military action. As we have 18 year olds go into the military, they should get the option in whatever kind of public service that suits his or her interest. Different genders across the world are frequently given different responsibilities. For example,

Australia's Mandatory Conscription

During World War 1, July 28th 1914 – November 11 1918, Australians were divided over the dispute of conscription: should people be forced to fight in the war? Conscription is the mandatory enrolment of a person for military service. It was a very contentious issue in Australia during 1916, as casualty rates in the war increased and the number of volunteers decreased. Prime Minister Billy Hughes decided to take the issue to the public in a referendum, Australian’s were given the option to vote either yes or no on the matter. There were two strong perspectives on the subject. Many people were against conscription, as they thought it was unethical and created employment issues. However, numerous people were for the idea of conscription as they

Mandatory Military Service in the United States Essay

7 Works Cited

The idea that members of a community have the duty to defend it, is as old as civilization itself (Ruschmann 10). The United States has an extensive history, starting with the original thirteen States of involuntary conscription in time of conflict. Citizen’s service is a standard principle of American military service, which places the obligation of service upon citizens to serve and to ensure that the state require those citizens to serve (Dalehite and Birskyte 1). With this obligation, young people will be imbued with a sense of “duty” and being part of the collective effort in which everyone will have and do their part for the benefit of the nation. Thereby, military service in the

Compulsory Military Conscription

In 1840 the biggest group of immigrants that came to texas was germany.They constituted more than 5 percent of the total Texas population. Germans have different ways they dress, different religion/ heritage, and came to texas for different and harsh reasons.

Should United States Have Mandatory Military Service

The United States has used ẗhe draft in four military conflicts since the countryś beginning. The rest of the time, the country has relied upon volunteers. Many countries require citizens to serve two years of military service, but should the United States do this? There are a lot conflicts that will come in play if they put the mandatory service on us, whether we vote for it, or congress makes this law. The only time the United States will pick you if you get drafted. Drafted means that they pick your name when they don't have enough people for war and the United states has used that for older wars but not the newer ones because they have enough people why then do we need mandatory service or what will the benefits for this. My

Benefits Of Mandatory Military Service In The United States

In different countries all over the world, it is mandatory for every young person to serve at least two years of service in the military. Many people believe we should have the same policy in the United States. People should have their own choice to serve in the military or not because mandatory military service is unfair and does not give each young person the right to express themselves in their daily life.

Pros And Cons Of Mandatory National Service

The topic of mandatory national service has been around for years now, and there will always be arguments on whether it should be enforced or not. Some may say that it takes away our freedom, but is it not what gives us freedom in the first place? The United States’ military, national service, as well as community service is based on volunteers. That is what makes this country great, but there are less volunteers as years go by. Crime increases, streets are not safe anymore, Americans are oblivious to what is happening around the world. There are so many opportunities to give back to the country, yet, not many care. Today’s generation is based on social trends, and self-gratification. There is also the fact that many young people do not know what to do with their life after high school, some continue to college or focus on work, others do not work nor study. Therefore, all young men and women should be required to give two years to national service because it can help solve problems as well as build the community back together.

Mandatory Conscription In The Military

The GI Bill also provides assistance with career advancement. Entrepreneurship training helps veterans start their own businesses, flight training allows veterans to become airline pilots, and funding for license and certification testing helps servicemen and women become certified mechanics, therapists, web developers, and attorneys (“Education Benefits”, 2017).

Mandatory Military Conscription and Its Effect on Society Essay

In todays society the war in the Middle East can be considered a controversial topic. The men and women in Iraq and Afghanistan put their lives on the line every day to help keep our country free. No one has forced them to serve in the United States Armed Forces they have made their own conscience decision to serve. However these men and women only make up a small percentage of the United States population. Should all men and women be required to serve in the U.S. armed forces when they graduate from high school or should the United States require mandatory military service?

Mandatory Military Service Essay

Another benefit of mandating the service of young adults is that they would be disciplined and setup for success in life as a productive citizen of the United States. Military boot camp is designed to break the recruit down to where they are not better than any other recruit, and then they train them to do their best in every task they approach. This creates unrivaled discipline and extreme excellence in every operation the United States military executes. Not only will this be useful while in military service, but also when they begin to operate in the working world. This requirement will unify the working force as a result of the mandated service. Businesses will be able to work efficiently and accurately in all that they accomplish. Again, this will improve the United States as a country. Why would the United States refuse this mandate? The only reason would be that they bring the law down to the lowest denominator of the few people who argue with the benefits. These people might say that not all people are designed to be in the military. However, the military has jobs for every make and model. Every talent is useful to the military. Making young adult serve in the military for two years would actually give them time to figure out what their future career is meant to be. Some people cannot ever be satisfied, and would object to anything! On the contrary, decisions that have the abundance of benefits as mandating service for young

Should We Be Mandatory Military Service?

Making military service mandatory sound like it would be a good idea. This can give discipline, makes stronger citizens, but the reality is doing this takes away freedom and goes against the very foundations of what America is supposed to be. Mandatory military service should not be required for American citizens.

mandatory national service essay

IMAGES

VIDEO

COMMENTS

United We Serve?: The Debate over National Service

Mandatory Military Service: Pros and Cons Essay

The Case for Mandatory National Service

Is Mandatory Military Service Good for a Country?

Get Our Newsletter

More Stories

Confucius in the European Enlightenment

Watching an Eclipse from Prison

Support JSTOR Daily

Should National Service Be Required for All Young Americans?

World Brief

China Brief

South Asia Brief

Fareed Zakaria on an Age of Revolutions

Spring 2024 Issue

FP Analytics

From Resistance to Resilience

To Save Democracy, America Needs a Mandatory Public Service Program

America Needs a National Service Draft Now to Fight the Coronavirus

U.S. Allies Relieved After Senate Passes Long-Delayed Aid Bill

Does Trump Have a Foreign-Policy Vision?

Join the Conversation

Change your username:

Confirm your username to get started.

Sign up for Editors' Picks

Will Washington Sanction Sudan’s RSF?

Ukraine, Israel, Indo-Pacific Aid Bill Passes U.S. Senate

Forget About Chips—China Is Coming for Ships

‘The Regime’ Misunderstands Autocracy

Washington’s Failed Africa Policy Needs a Reset

The Strategic Unseriousness of Olaf Scholz

FP’s flagship evening newsletter guiding you through the most important world stories of the day, written by Alexandra Sharp . Delivered weekdays.

6 Reasons Why National Service Is Important

1. National Service Can Bolster A Country’s Defences

2. It Teaches Young People Valuable Skills

3. It Helps Build Character In Young People

4. National Service Helps To Unite A Country

5. National Service Ensures People Give Back To Their Nation

6. It Makes The Government And Military More Accountable

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Recent Posts

Mandatory National Service

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

Should The United States Should Be Able To Serve In The Military

Essay On Military Draft

Should Citizens Refuse To Serve In The Military

Assignment 1: Research Topics with Explanation

Persuasive Essay Over Selective Service

Military Conscription Necessary In The United States?

The Pros And Cons Of Conscription

Military Conscription (Persuasive Essay)

Argumentative Essay: Everyone Should Serve In The Army

Volunteering In The Military Research Paper

Mandatory Public Service

Idea and Specific Reasons

The Importance Of Service In The US Military

The Importance Of Mandatory Service

Related Topics

Against Mandatory National Service

Pros And Cons Of Conscription In Australia

Mandatory National Service

Against Reinstating the Military Draft Essay

Should the United States have Mandatory Military Conscription?

United States Adopt A Similar Type Of Policy Of Mandatory Conscription

Australia's Mandatory Conscription

Mandatory Military Service in the United States Essay

Compulsory Military Conscription

Should United States Have Mandatory Military Service

Benefits Of Mandatory Military Service In The United States

Pros And Cons Of Mandatory National Service

Mandatory Conscription In The Military

Mandatory Military Conscription and Its Effect on Society Essay

Mandatory Military Service Essay

Should We Be Mandatory Military Service?

Related Topics

IMAGES

VIDEO

COMMENTS