Our first President eloquently stated the rationale for national service: "... it must be laid down as a primary position and the basis of our (democratic) system, that every citizen who enjoys the protection of a free Government owes not only a proportion of his property, but even his personal service to the defense of it.”

George Washington’s statement makes explicit the social contract inherent in US citizenry: to enjoy our nation’s freedoms requires we as citizen’s to bear personal responsibility for defending them. And yet, today, while our nation continues to fight war on several fronts and must regularly contemplate new military interventions and increased domestic threats, less than 0.5 percent of our population serves in our armed forces. (Eikenberry & Kennedy) Futhermore, this minute percentage “ ... is disproportionately composed of racial, ethnic, and other demographic minorities.” (Kennedy) In part because of this gross disparity, few americans are forced shoulder any true sacrifice from our military actions. Not only is the familial sacrifice of having a loved one serve no longer widespread but the majority of us bear not the tanglible daily realization of being at war that past generations have known, including materials rationing. Even anti-war protests—like those that were a hallmark of our Vietnam War era—are less visible since we have moved to an all volunteer army. This lack of respresentational and fair accountability on our citizenry translates into less accountability on the part of the parties that govern our policies and therefore our military. This rift between those that serve, those that feel any effect and those that make military decisions is an argument for why we are ethically bound to require some mandatory service of our citizens, to reinstate the draft.

Responsibility of citizenry/Social Equity/Political Accountability/National Pride This statistic seems in direct opposition to George Washington’s "Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it." --Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4,1777
Many countries in the world have compulsory service. Such democratic countries as Austria, Brazil, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Israel, Mexico, Norway, Russia, South Korea, Sweden, Switzerland and Turkey are among them. Compulsory military service is normally for 18-year-olds, and lasts between 1 and 3 years.

And there are usually many types of service that can be performed, ranging from combat roles to intelligence and logistic work. Different genders are frequently given different responsibilities. In Israel, for example, males usually perform 3 years of combat/security service, while females perform two years of non-combat service. Many nations grapple with the question of mandatory military service, including the United States. Proponents believe it increases the strength of the military, strengthens the character of youth, and increases the collective conscience of a nation and the restraint of leaders when considering military action. Opponents consider it an affront to individual liberties, a risk in breeding militarism and the dominance of the state, and simply unnecessary when voluntary armies can be sufficient. These and other pros and cons and quotations are documented below. Compulsory national service is not a new concept; it is rooted in government policies of the late 1700s. A draft changes the nature of national service because only a sub-set of citizens must serve.

At two key points in American history, the draft was highly divisive and resulted in massive protests: the Civil War and Vietnam. President Nixon and Congress abolished the draft in 1973.

Reinstituting the draft would require an act of Congress

Political and moral motives[edit]

Further information: Social contract, Social solidarity, and Active citizenship
Jean Jacques Rousseau argued vehemently against professional armies, feeling it was the right and privilege of every citizen to participate to the defense of the whole society and a mark of moral decline to leave this business to professionals. He based this view on the development of the Roman republic, which came to an end at the same time as the Roman army changed from a conscript to professional force.[124] Similarly, Aristotle linked the division of armed service among the populace intimately with the political order of the state.[125] Niccolò Machiavelli argued strongly for conscription, seeing the professional armies as the cause of the failure of societal unity in Italy.
Other proponents, such as William James, consider both mandatory military and national service as ways of instilling maturity in young adults.[126] Some proponents, such as Jonathan Alter and Mickey Kaus, support a draft in order to reinforce social equality, create social consciousness, break down class divisions and for young adults to immerse themselves in public enterprise.[127][128][129] 1. 2. Jump up ^ Rousseau, J-J. Social Contract. Chapter "The Roman Comitia" 3. Jump up ^ Aristotle, Politics, Book 6 Chapter VII and Book 4 Chapter XIII. 4. Jump up ^ William James (1906). "The Moral Equivalent of War". 5. Jump up ^ Alter, Jonathan. "Cop Out on Class". Newsweek. 6. Jump up ^ "Interview with Mickey Kaus". realclearpolitics.com. 7. Jump up ^ Postrel, Virginia. "Overcoming Merit".

Nature of all volunteer force since 1973 (Salient characteristics: small force, inexpensive, shaped by technological developments) 3 Topics: political accountability, social equity, social comity what is the relationship of military service to citizenship? Question goes back milenia “The army is at war but the nation is not.”puts a sharp point on relationship of service and citizenship. Our forbears had a ready answer. from time of ancient greeks through American Revolutionary War well into 20th century, the obligation to bear arms and the privileges of citizenship were intimately linked. From republics of Aristotle’s Athens to Machiavelli’s Florence to Thomas Jefferson’s Virginia and beyond, to be a full citizen was to stand ready to shoulder arms (or in ancient times to bring one’s one at one’s expense). Amoungst our founders it was their respect for the political consequences of that link that they were so committed to militia and in so fear of standing armies. (George Washington quote) African Americans from the time of the civil war on keenly understood that link between service and citizenship when they demanded and got combat roles (180,000 strong in Civil War and again in WW!). (as we recognize equality—race & gender--) For more than 2 millenia and certainly for much of the history of this republic the tradition of the citizen soldier has served several important purposes: it has strengthened civic engagment, it has served to define the very meaning of citizenship and it has encourage political accountability when it comes to that most consequential of all political decisions, the decision to wage war. Today, that tradition has been seriously compromised. No American citizen is obligated to military service. Very few will serve in uniform, fewer still will actually taste battle, fewer still will ever sit in a classroom of a university. Comparison with prior generation’s war can illuminate the scale novelty & gravity of situation In WW2, The US took some 16 million men (and several thousand women) into service, a great majority of them draftees. About 12% of the population. What’s more, in that war, this society mobilized the economic, social and psychological resources of this society down to the last factory and rail car and victory garden and classroom. WW2 is properly understood as a total war. It compelled the partcipation of all citizens it exacted the last full measure of devotion from some 400,000 of them and it required an enormous comittment of the society’s energies to secure the ultimate victory. In contrast, today’s military numbers about 1.5 million active duty personnel with about another 900,000 in reserves, in a country whose population has more than doubled since 1945. So proportionate to the population, today’s active duty miliatry is about 4% of the size of that which won WW2, about .5% of total poplutation. Although now incredibly relativily inexpensive US defense expenditures at only 5% of gross GDP, our miliatary budget is still greater than the sum of all other countries military budgets combined, a calculation that testifies to both scale of US economy and of the role of military in America conception of its security needs and foreign policy priorities.

Implications are unsettling. Amounts to history’s most powerful military force can now be sent into battle in the name of a society that scarcely breaks a sweat when it does so. It can wage war while putting at risk very few of its sons and daughters and only those who go into harm’s way willingly. Unlike virtually all previous society’s in history, US today can wage extremely effective conventional warfare while not appreciably disrupting its civilian economy. We have evolved in unprecented and uniquely american, a modern method of warfar that does not ask, precisely because it does not require sacrifice in the form of large scale personal or material ccontributions from the citizens on whose behalf that force is deployed. RMA—revolution in military affairs—computer and information technologies. First fruits of this revolution seen in first Gulf War of 1991. Best understood as the final mission of a force configured to fight a fairly conventional land battle against Warsaw Pact adversaries in Central Europe. Smart bombs only about 8% of the ordinance used in 1991. By the time of the second gulf war in 2003, in Iraq, smart munititions made up about 90% of the american arsenal, and the implications of accuracy as a force multiplier were truly spectacular. This RMA that has drawn so deeply on developments the civilian sectors of technology and innovation has vastly amplified the fire power and fighting effectiveness of the individual soldier (sailor, etc.) making it far more feasible to field a much smaller force capable of wreaking enormous destruction, much more so than the lumbering terrain-bound armies that clashed on battlefields since time in memoriam.

The RMA has downsized the armed forces to such a degree that only the willing or the desperate need serve and even the call up of the reserves does not have an appreciable impact on civilian society. It cannot be healthy for a democracy to let something as important as warmaking grow so far removed from broad popular participation and strict political accountability. That why the war making power was constituionally lodged in the legistlative branch in the first place. It makes some supremely important things too easy, like the violent coercion of other society’s and the resort to military solutions on the assumption that they will be swifter, more cheaply bought and more conclusive than what could be accomplished by the more vexed and tedious process of diplomacy. Life of a democratic society, in this regard, should be strenuous. It should make demands on its citizens when they are asked to engage with issues of life and death. To be sure, RMA has made obsolete need for the huge citizen army of the past. However in need of some kind of mechanism to ensure that the private and military sectors do note become dangerously separate spheres. Equity & Comity: In 2007, according to an American Heritage Foundation survey, ethnic and racial minorities composed 42% of the armies enlisted ranks. Of the civilian population, approximately 32% of all 18-24 yr olds have had some exposure to college education. Comparitively, in the enlisted ranks of the US army the exact same age group that number is 2.6%. So not only is today’s military remarkably small in relation to the overall structure of civil society, it is also disproportionately composed of racial ethnic and socioeconomic minorities. Whoever they are and for whatever reasons they enlist, they certainly do not make up the kind of citizen army that we fielded two generations ago whose members were drawn from all ranks of society without respect to background or privilege or education and mobilized on such a scale and in such a way that civilian society’s deep and durable consent to the shaping and use of that force was absolutely necessary. Assymetry of worriesome proportions: that a hugely preponderant majority of Americans with no risk whatsoever of their own or their children’s exposure to military service have in effect hired some of the least advantaged of our fellow countrymen to do some of our most dangerous business while the majority goes on with our own affairs unbloodied and undistracted. Cultural resentment . . . castagated the educated classes, the securely employed, elite institutions like major universities that do not have academically accredited ROTC programs and resist allowing military recruiters on campus—a policy that goes a long way toward ensuring that universities that pride themselves on training the next generation of leaders will have minimal influence on the leadership of a hugely important american institution—the american armed forces. The cultural distance that increasingly and rancorously separates those who serve from those who do not and insulates some of our greatest universities from the officer corps exaserbates the cultural tensions that already threaten our social comity and one more reason to worry about the deeper and longer terms implications on maintaining an all volunteer force as well as maintaining the ban on ROTC.

The AVF (all volunteer force) was created in the tumult of the Vietnam era in 1973. A democracy requires a draft in the name of citizen obligation and civic unity. None should be exempt. And outgrowth of JFK’s injunction “ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country.”

In 1981 National Organization for Women mounted a campaign for women’s inclusion in the draft, arguing (in an amecus brief) that women suffered “devastating long-term psychological and political repurcussions” given their exclusion from military service. Citizen equality demanded now proclaimed equal responsibility for jeopardy when it came to military service.

Armed civic virture: a nation one and indivisible. During WW2 some considered a possibility to “yank the hyphen” from italian-american, Citizens no longer indifferent to their government. Every citizen identifies with the whole. Molds the nation. French revolution (liberty equality fraternity) the attempt to fuse nationa and state warfar was democritized no longer an elite class of warriors but now citizens died for the collective as a general class of citizens. First half of 20th century was golden age of conscription. WW2 lives on as a time of civic unity and virtue everyone pushing for the same goal everyone prepared for sacrifice. One of the dilemmas at Vietnam, the nation was mobilized for war but nature of conflict wasn’t total. But we had to get citizenry somewhat engaged but things started to unravel. The draft is an instrument of social equality. (Though not the will of the people). African americans integreated into forces in 1948 – Truman. Generations of particular families serve—legacy service. Constitutes a tradition of honor. Some deepening of social resentment. Liberal political culture has become more volunturist and individualist and see conscription as a form of servitude.

Solidarity after 9/11, this is what civil unity feels like—but it was in the wake of tragedy and terror. Civic danger comes from if we only see our own engagements our own purposes, shun all notion or acknowlegement of obligation and sacrifice then a dangerous divide opens up between military and civilian life. We may be on a trajectory of becoming incapable of recognizing and honoring that commitment in others (treatment of vets when they return home). Skin in the game Absence of american elite from ranks of armed forces a big problem. (As technology and innovation are more important and more greatly implemented) (Was ROTC reinstated after repeal of don’t ask don’t tell?) lack of personal familiarity with military by politicians. Not only affect their decision but might also affect level of acceptance/deference of military leaders to civilian/political leaders. Antipathy for civilians? Military role in foreign policy is great.

Price of exhaustion of existing troops. Extended and repeat tours.

We as citizens are not as engaged. March of 2006“If I had to go into Iraq with a draft army I would have been impeached by now” Bush—shows that he recognized the space of political maneuver he had from popular response precisely because of the nature of the force over which he had command. AVF doesn’t make large claims on citizenry personally or materially.

Gravity of war as a concrete thing not an abstract idea.

More space for political manuever because public is not as engaged with this decision as it might be creates a moral hazard. May not be the decision on whether we go to war or not but on how the war is fought. Civic education in schools has fallen off further widening the chasm of military sacrifice.

Practical and political impossibility but a need to examine the ethical argument for keeping the military and civic spheres interdigitated. Structural problem created by increasing distance between the two. Of 535 members of congress roughly 10 have kids in military. (Kennedy) National Guard and Militia . . .

Growing civic gap between elites and military spawned return of ROTC. Education has a moral component and an ethos of service. With privileges come responsilities (are those responsibilities always voluntary).