Advantages And Disadvantages Of Mandatory Military Service in the US

Mandatory military service is a procedure utilized by nations to fabricate an enormous and ground-breaking military prepared to be sent in the midst of war or when the need to ensure the power of a country emerges. Various governments in history have employed it, including the Qin Empire of China in 221 BC and France during the French Revolution during the 1790s (Ayres). A few nations require mandatory military service even today.

Among which are North Korea, Myanmar, and South Korea. Mandatory military service is a disputable topic, and various protests have been held against it on both religious and political grounds (Ayres). This leads to the question: Should the U.S. adopt a mandatory military service policy? Some people believe that the mandatory military service policies promotes equality among citizens. On the other hand, many people believe that by having a mandatory military service policy, the government would be violating the public’s free will.

Supporters of mandatory military services believe that it promotes national unity in many ways. As Crystal Ayres said, “it allows citizens to learn and train together, creating that shared experience of having served in the military.” Then there is that general comprehension of what life in the military resembles, what is expected of the job, and what must be done so as to secure the nation (Regoli). Citizens can appreciate and be grateful for the compensations that people in the military made for their country. And all of these can join people, particularly when managing a cultural or political threat from various nations (Ayres).

This would preserve the heritage of independence while forging a gravely required sense of common purpose. A diverse program with numerous alternatives for satisfying necessities, governmentally run and organized around the idea of shared service inside the United States would be an extraordinary idea for promoting national unity. Civil service projects including national parks, education, poverty, infrastructure or any other community based programs would also be essential alternatives.

However, opponents say that it violates people’s rights to exercise free will which contests the rights of the First Amendment. In this situation, no one will have the last say whether they ought to take an interest in the military or not, since it is a necessary order implemented all through the nation (Ayres). If individuals were to join the army against their will, even for a short period of time, that can cause bad attitudes towards authority. Unlike deliberate soldiers who are eager to encounter serious training and serve the nation, draft soldiers usually come up short on the basic experience and versatility, giving low battle skill quality as to when the time arrives, they would be sent to war.

This could lead to a high casualty rate among soldiers drafted under compulsory military service. For the most part, serving the country’s military has been a choice (Carle). This makes sense, considering that the purpose of the American army is to defend America’s freedom; if all citizens were forced to serve, then this basic right would simply not exist, and the country would take a giant step backward in time, revisiting a practice similar to slavery (Carle). The current U.S. military budget is over $660 billion, and if the U.S. applied a mandatory military service policy that would increase an already inflated budget.

Advocates also argue that it promotes equality among citizens, which means that no one will be exempted from facing wars. All citizens, be they rich individuals, celebrities or ordinary people, will be required to serve in the military when their country is facing war or in need of additional soldiers (Ayres). As a result, social statues are eliminated, promoting equality among all people. This would prove that no one is better or more important than anyone in the society. Mandatory service would be a solution to the 'current dysfunction' because National service, be it in the military, or other public or private sector opportunities, breaks down the barriers of race, class, income, geography, and even language (Glickman). Young adults are granted the opportunity to see their peers and fellow Americans as a member of their team. Because soldiers are trained thoroughly to respect freedom and values, there will be a nation that has respect for the land and most of all freedom.

Nonetheless, critics claim that mandatory enlistment puts young people’s life at risk. Casualties don’t just simply occur in actual war or in the combat zone but also during training and such. Mandatory military service, which normally enlists physically fit youngsters, put the next generation to serious harm and, at worst, death (Ayres). The United States have plenty of people who volunteer to join the armed forces without making service mandatory. There is no need for the U.S. to have mandatory military service because they do not need it. Their military is currently powerful enough to keep them safe, and there are enough systems in place to keep foreign terrorists from getting into their country (Wilson). Young people’s lives should not be put at risk for the military. However, if they choose to go to the military and serve their country it should be up to them, and if not, it should be put in on their education and studies.

Finally, proponents believe that having compulsory conscription means maintaining an active military force that is ready to respond quickly and effectively to any threats. If, say, a war did break out, it would mean that the military would not have to spend as much time recruiting because they would already have trained soldiers. This would allow them to have a head start on the battlefield. A headstart is really crucial sometimes to win a war and have the least amount of casualties possible. If other countries ever plan to attack a particular nation filled with volunteer military personnel, they will think twice before launching an attack. This is because they will be outnumbered by around 300 million soldiers (Regoli). If every single citizen enlists in the military, it allows a country to be able to adequately defend its land and its people. In other words, a nation that mandates compulsory military service will have sufficient protection at all times.

On the contrary, detractors point out that not everyone is fit to meet the physical, mental and emotional demands of the job. If military service becomes mandatory, those who were not cut out the job will have a hard time coping up with the training and other demands. Those who may be suffering from medical conditions, like anxiety, cardiovascular diseases and cancer, will be forced to be sent as draft. This will only make matters worse if those people come to volunteer, even if they are not physically or mentally fit. Potentially killing someone is something that every person who was drafted in the military struggles with in their own way.

A study conducted by the Anxiety and Depression Association of America showed that approximately 40,000 military members who returned from war in Iraq and Afghanistan suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). And that rate is three times higher among those who were deployed in combat than those who were non-deployed (Ayres). The physical and mental health of people should be carefully considered before applying any type of law about mandatory military service.

Mandatory military service has its merits and demerits. Due to it violating the public’s free will, putting young people’s lives at risk and due to not everyone being fit to meet the physical, mental, and emotional demands of the job, the United States should not adopt a mandatory military service policy. The best way to build a military force is to fill it with recruits that have chosen to be there rather than a group of mandatory participants that do not believe in the cause and are not willing to put their bodies on the line.