Who Bears the Burden?
A guest post by William Schofield
We commemorated a rainy Veterans Day this year as we traditionally have done. President Obama placed flowers at the Tomb of the Unknowns in Arlington National Cemetery. Dignitaries paid tribute to our veterans in ceremonies across the country as bands played and flags waved. More privately, old memories were rekindled when people looked at photographs, many now faded, or visited grave sites, or touched a name carved into a black granite wall. Others e-mailed those currently serving.
This year was especially poignant. The murder at Fort Hood of a dozen soldiers and one civilian by one of their own added a new and disturbing element of sorrow. Two wars grind on. The one in Iraq is perhaps approaching its end, at least as far as the need for large numbers of American soldiers goes. It seems that we will increase our involvement in Afghanistan to reverse a situation apparently sliding away from us.
Eight years of fighting have strained our forces. This reality and efforts of the services to remedy it are staples of daily newscasts. In spite of a recent expansion of the Army and Marines, members face repetitive tours in combat zones. The services have accepted enlistees who previously would not have qualified, relied greatly on the National Guard and Reserves, and, along with civilian agencies, made unprecedented, and sometimes inappropriate, use of civilian contractors. While our strained economic situation has undoubtedly helped immediate recruiting efforts, the current situation is neither sustainable nor equitable.
Shortly after the attacks of 9/11, the late Professor Charles Moskos of Northwestern University, a respected sociologist and long-time student of the military, proposed a version of national service to ensure that we could meet the challenges of the new kind of war that we faced. All citizens, male and female, between 18 and 25 would serve 18 months in the military, homeland security agencies, or civilian national service groups. In return, they would receive benefits similar to those available under the old G.I.Bill. The more dangerous the work, the greater would be the benefits.
Less than two per cent of Americans today have a direct connection to the military. I have had a connection with the military for 40 years, yet only know three people whose sons or daughters are serving as enlisted soldiers. In contrast, Moskos noted that in 1958, the year he graduated from Princeton University, 400 of the 750 members of his class had served in the military. In the class of 2006, nine of 1,100 entered military service. Moskos wasn't being critical of those who serve today. He was highlighting the gap between those who serve and the rest of society.
I don't know if Moskos' proposal for public service is the way to go or not. It does offer a reasonable starting point for a public discussion on how to ensure that our security needs are met in an effective and equitable way. Most importantly, it would require us to answer a fundamental question: what are the obligations of citizenship when our society is faced with a threat. I think most would agree that it is more than a yellow "I Support the Troops" decal, no matter how fervent that conviction.
The author, William Schofield, is a retired Foreign Service officer with the State Department who, among other assignments, served at the U.S. Embassy in Afghanistan 2004-2005. Prior to joining the State Department, he served in Viet Nam with the Army and later in the Reserves.
COMMENTS
Post a Comment
By using this Service you agree not to post material that is obscene, harassing, defamatory, or otherwise objectionable. Although GovExec does not monitor comments posted to this site (and has no obligation to), it reserves the right to delete, edit, or move any material that it deems to be in violation of this rule.
ABOUT THIS BLOG
Government Executive Editor in Chief Tom Shoop, along with other editors and staff correspondents, take a fresh look at news affecting the management and operations of the federal bureaucracy.
There are important additional reasons to require national service of ALL citizens, and would be citizens. We are not only losing contact with the military, we are losing contact with each other. There is no structure that requires that people leave their immediate comfort zone of location or class. No means, such as the military, or the CCC, that creates interactions that lead people to work with each other and the "others" that they would not meet if they stay in their niche. I have met amny people who acknowledge that the military changed how they viewed other religions, races, and cultures. A national service requirement that all serve, preferably away from from home, would, in addition to improving the individuals, improve the nation.
Joseph Tieger Posted Thursday, November 12, 2009 6:49 AMWhile Mr. Schofield has several good points in his article, there is one that glaring issue that was not discussed at all. This would be the issue of almost 75% of today's youth are currently not eligible for military service.
The reasons fall into one (or more) of three categories -
1. Lack of physical fitness and obesity.
2. Lack of a high school diploma or GED.
3. Criminal record.
More is the shame when we allow our youth to "develop" such fine characteristics as the rule, not the exception.
Bud Posted Thursday, November 12, 2009 7:20 AMThis is part of the larger question: What ARE the responsibilities of American citizenship--not just when there's a threat, but ALL THE TIME?
What are they for children? For youth? For young adults? For the middle-aged? For the elderly? For the businessman? For the civil servant? For the elected leader?
I will also add the following: It should not be just the younger who has to sacrifice. There's an entire generation who has skated on this responsibility. How do WE serve now? Don't tell me, "With your tax dollars"; that's not enough, and too easy to disassociate from service.
Arclight
arclight Posted Thursday, November 12, 2009 8:54 AMThe baby boomer activists of the 60s drove a wedge between citizens and the military, and their descendents, the democrat party of today, has worked assiduously and successfully over the years to widen it.
Ron Posted Thursday, November 12, 2009 9:02 AMComes now a foreign service officer who wants all to serve? Young vilunteers at the mercey of administrations like this one, would be passing out leaflets as community organizers. In the worst sceanario they would be part of the scary "civilian army" that Obama touted in his inauguration speech. Instead of politically-motivated proposals like this one, why don't we raise military wages to make service more attractive, and train democrat youngsters to recognize that the opportunity for military service is an honor bestowed upon those living in the greatest nation in the world.
You must remember a voluntary military gives you those who want to serve a forced induction gives you those who may not. We have leadership today that does what they want regardless of public opinion or the majority. Majority has always ruled in this great nation thats why this is a great nation! Our old leadership that got us in this did not act until 8 months after 9/11???? or was it $$$$ When Pearl Harbor was attacked the next morning our leadership asked America to fight and you see how that turned out. We had even rode that wave clear into the 1980s. You can not asked our children to do something they do not believe in. If you ask the youth today the war is not a popular thing to them. Its not that they dont care and dont care if we get attacked again. Its just they dont feel Americas Heart and Soul is in this conflict. I would have to agree and proof of that is record unemployment instead of our factory burning at both ends. Why arent we digging in hard for this effort I personally believe greed is driving this war not patriotizm. I support our fighting men and women I apprieciate all they do but if Americas business and politicians dont start to get serious about dispatching this pest from the world using massive force or whatever it will take. Then dont expect the youth to come running to join up. No one wants to play on an average team everyone wants to play for the winning team. It was very difficult for me to write this I dont want our soldiers to feel they are not appreiciated I respect all of them for doing what others wont, but that being said I am disappointed in my leadership both parties on how they have handled themselves in this conflict. To bad we dont have a Patton or McCarther to lead us. Now those fellas knew how to get it do and bring us home with not only a victory but a decisive one that may even get us alittle respect in the world again instead of everyone we try to feed/help who ends up hating us anyway.
LC Posted Thursday, November 12, 2009 9:35 AMHaving served under both concepts draft and volunteer. There is no question that the volunteer system is much better for the military. No more baby sitting, court marshals, drug searches etc. those there for the most part want to be.
dan m ketter Posted Thursday, November 12, 2009 12:02 PMWhile I'll agree under the draft the military had a more diverse group of soldiers, you need a pad of 25% just to make up for those who didn't want to be there.
The military is much better off but I'm not so sure society is as a whole