OTOH, universal national service has an advantage in that regard, which would discipline and educating the populace, because it would conversely continue to civilize the military, which is already pretty civilized when compared with WWII, or Vietnam-era.
I saw part of that show. I'm sure they'll not have any problem producing tech-equipped operatives and mindless killers to defend our borders and operate the Geopolitical Nintendo game, from the Grunt to Guru levels.
But as someone who feels the military-industrial complex is out of control, and has since Truman exacted excessive tribute, created 200 phony incursions, and caused all kinds of threat to the world and Americans... I also feel one way to bring military control closer to what Americans need and want is to get the average American involved in the Swiss type of 2 weeks per year service.
A lot of advantages fall out of that, including much more appreciation for what the military does and less abject respect for any idiot wielding a weapon, and respect for actual leadership, intelligence and accountability. Also the military then absorbs who Americans really are, not just the attitudes of those who may volunteer for their own reasons.
Financial advantage - no so much the free labor, but the visibility by average Americans into military structure. Such Americans will be much less likely to roll over and accept the crap handed to us by the generals, politicians and beltway bandits for $2,000 coffeemakers, and more critical eye on $1/2 trillion missile defenses.
The social advantage is dramatic, as the teachers-teaching-the-teachers approach of the Army, which is the best history at such training, is part of the language of how to do directly socially useful things, like organizing low-cost housing in infested inner cities, provide Homeland Defense and a million other local activities.
JFK had the Peace Corps, and a similar inner-city league. Giving discipline to average Joe and Josephine adds value and confidence to what those folks decide to do later on in life.
Given the mindless militarism of the apparently corrupt Bush Inc., this would be one of those surprising moves that can be seen as a positive by both right and left, for entirely different reasons, some of which they can both agree with.
Much of the adversarial nature of the right and left is artificial, created by those with an agenda of looting the Treasury and defeating accountability. This move would help counter that and allow even rabid advocates to work together.
Smedly Butler would have gotten better hearing in a country that knew public service.
Our political process would benefit from a populace who experienced public service, and understood that was NOT OK to have politicians whose purpose is enriching themselves and their buddies.
Then again, maybe that's why this current administration will find a way not to do it. |
