By: Zach Weaver

In the midst of the Congressional appointment of the Super Committee, everyone is coming out of the woodwork to provide their opinion of what the Supper Committee (and government as a whole) should do with this expedited authority, as well as the ramifications of their (in)decisions. I stumbled upon this article yesterday from the Washington Post in which Buck McKeon (R-California) provides insight into possible outcomes and shortcomings of no deal (or not the right deal) being reached. Defense spending is not immune to budget cuts, and if not enough is trimmed off the deficit by the Super Committee, an extra $500 billion would expire in funding for the military. McKeon raises the question, “who would then protect our country in the event of another attack?” In other words, who will fight, if the cuts are made, and we need to go to an all-volunteer military (keeping in mind that it could turn out that pensions are not being paid)? This got me thinking of the obligations of American citizens. One possibility offered is instituting a mandatory service law – a military draft.

A military draft. Certainly, most people would think that this is a worst-case scenario, in which the government is snatching away citizens’ freedoms and forcing them to enlist. I for one am against a mandatory service regulation, but pondering more in-depth about the possibility brings up some interesting points. Those who offer to join the military do an extremely bold, courageous, and selfless act. Why don’t all citizens have an obligation to serve their country to this degree? Some hold the opinion that a mandatory service rule would bring about more progressions in other areas (Peace Corps servants, Church missionaries, volunteer humanity organizations, etc.), given that there is a chance to opt out of the military – provided you take an approved alternative course of action.

So the question begs to be asked, should there be a rule that forces citizens to serve their country in some fashion (be it military, Peace Corps, etc.)? I see the argument that is being made here, that Americans should be held to a higher oath of citizenry. However, a law to this effect seems to me to be over-reaching, and encroaches on our basic freedoms, not only as Americans, but also as humans. I think a proper response to this claim is to increase incentives for Americans (of all ages, not just 18-25 year olds) to select a service course on their own. The Peace Corps provides small payment, the military provides college tuition, and others provide retirement pensions. But more needs to be done to recruit for these services than financial gain. A feeling of obligation that is deeply rooted in some should become more widely expected, to give back to your community in a way that meets your abilities, and leaves the world a better place.

To say that people are not already aiding in the advancement of their country, and the broader world, because they are not doing one of a select few “acceptable alternatives” to serve their country is offensive and insular. How about a bright person who would have selected to go to college and one day find the cure for cancer, but instead was told to go fight a war? An extreme case for sure, but still the point is valid, that people all over the country are making positive impacts on their neighbors and global community. I understand proponents of the draft/opt out laws, but think that they are narrow-minded in what they see is an obligation of citizenship. Companies pay taxes, workers provide goods and services necessary for others, and to say that many are not making a positive impact on the community is appalling. I don’t mean to compare the cook at the local restaurant to an armed forces member, but I think that more credit is due to the heart of America, the every day workers who keep the country running, and make it a place worth protecting. Forcing everyone to devote years of their life to one of only a handful of acceptable choices is nonsense. This assumes that entire generations would be out “better serving the country” than making the country what it is – something that understates the efforts of the typical American, and should be dismissed.