Would You Support a Draft for a Humanitarian Service Corps?

No, but I would support a military draft with a humanitarian corp (either domestic or foreign, i.e., Vista or Peace Corps) alternative.

To refine the concept: have formal secondary school end in what is now the junior year (seriously, the senior year of US high school suffers, shall we say, "diminished returns?"), with college acceptances effective not the following year but the year after that (btw, yes, 17-year-olds can join the military with parental consent).

One potential benefit would be that for the Vista crew, who spent a year or so, say, cleaning graffiti, they would be less prone to polluting in the future and might adopt a protective stance toward city streets ("Hey! Don't spraypaint that; I spent all summer cleaning that wall!").

This could replace other programs such as City Year, and revive others (a la Vista).

But....good luck with that.

what do you mean, you wrote a paper on this?

paper for what? college? and editorial?

And no, there shouldn't be a humanitarian draft.

I spend a year doing national service work in an AmeriCorps program, and worked with and have friends who were in the Peace Corps.

Most agree that COMPULSORY service winds up being less productive than freely chosen service. There was a recent article (either NYTimes or Wash Post, can't remember which) about high schoolers and "volunteering" has lost it's meaning because it is now compulsory. Every kid does some sort of volunteering, most of it crap, and few say they get anything out of it, or actually contribute to society at large.

A similar part of the problem is that it is often difficult for find quality service projects. I saw this often in AmeriCorps where some of my project were incredibly worthwhile and cost effective, others were a waste of my time - and hence taxpayer money. Unfortunately it takes time and work to set up valuable and effective service projects.

Another one of the arguments against ANY national service program - be it military or national service - is that it is frequently floated as a way to "give youngsters respect/discipline/patriotism/etc." It's a fraudulent argument. Did our parents - who didn't do these things - not have respect? Maybe since they failed to teach the younger generation, they should be the ones doing the service too? Maybe we should make a 2 year compulsory military service when we hit 21 and 2 year compulsory service work when you hit 50 (and those over that have to complete their work too.)? I'd bet you'd find the idea a lot less tolerable.

One of the things that defines the U.S. is freedom - and part of that is freedom to do what you want with your life (except in times of national emergency.) Don't require me, or anyone else, to do anything. We don't need compulsory sports training academies, we don't need compulsory service to teach our young a lesson, we don't need compulsory military service to bolster patriotism.

Finally, what we SHOULD do, is create more opportunities for people to serve. Nothing wrong with increasing the Peace Corps budget and adding more workers, creating better incentives (greater loan paybacks, education stipends, etc.) for those who do serve. That's what should be done.

Question... is the Peace Corps in any way affiliated with government?

I don't think it is, but I don't know. The opinion that follows is based on this assumption.

I think before you even start to talk about conscription into a humanitarian service corps, you need to establish one that you could actually conscript people into. Meaning not an NGO, but something run by government with specific policy objectives.

I don't know that you'd get public support for that. How could you justify it? What would be the point of serving a market that's already well-served by non-partisan (although not un-biased) NGOs?

Presuming you could get past that roadblock, then I think staffing shouldn't rely on a draft. I don't think you can force people to want to control humanitarian activities. People who are interested in that sort of thing naturally gravitate toward it.

So I don't think it's a particularly fruitful idea, but would like to hear more from you, since maybe I'm looking at it from the wrong angle.

As a side note - humanitarian intervention is a sideline for the Canadian military, through our Disaster Response Team. Does the US military have a similar mission among any of its services?

I think the Humanitarian Service Corps will be doing more work domestically than abroad.

http://www.theoildrum.com/

You guys know what that is? Thats called COLD HARD REALITY slapping you in the face because you didn't listen. When Mexicans start pouring over the border looking for food and jobs, because we aren't exporting corn to them anymore because its going for Ethanol, maybe the peace corps can help them. Hopefully MS-13 doesn't, well hahaha.

Heck, maybe you guys will lose some weight for once.

-peeps

Yeah -- let's force our kids to go to the shitty parts of the world. Then we can pay to keep our troops there to keep our kids safe. Then we can see where that goes. Or let's worry about the kids that don't want to be drafted into humanitarian service and spend their time not giving a shit. You gonna throw those kids in the brig? I'd also have to consider that this would lead to a pregnancy/std issue (unless you are just going to grab every 17 year old boy and send him away to help out in Somalia -- in which case, there are always the hookers.

The answer to the OP is a frank "no". It's a complete infringement of any American's freedom to require them to use their years working for the peace corps, whatever (yes, this is different than the military draft which is (1) unlikely, (2) necessary to defend the nation's security). If you want more out of people -- you can tax them higher and fund more volunteer organizations (thus giving them a chance to be marketable as a place to spend a couple years) -- but you CAN NOT force them into anything like the OP suggested.

What would be much more interesting is requiring service work (at home or abroad) as a condition of college financial aid.

No. It is a violation of freedom to have a draft especially for something this lame.

I'm not sure what I think of this, but one good thing which could be done with some sort of "draft" be it military or some other service which would be good would be vocational training. Our young people now have no real vocational skills to fall back on. Not everyone is college material. I have a Swedish freind, and I think they are required to do 2 years of service during the 12th grade timeframe. Everyone learns some sort of trade, he's a chef now. Even for those who go to college after the service having general vocational skills is good.

Pete wrote:

Question... is the Peace Corps in any way affiliated with government?

As a side note - humanitarian intervention is a sideline for the Canadian military, through our Disaster Response Team. Does the US military have a similar mission among any of its services?

Yes, the Peace Corps is affilliated with the U.S. Government. It was created by JFK's executive order, and was made into an independent (meaning not affiliated with dept of state or DoD) org by Carter's executive org. It is its own federal agency.

Yes, the US Military does disaster relief. In fact, apart from the Red Cross, they are the main disaster relief force in this country (FEMA is a glorified insurance agency, not a disaster organization.) For disasters inside the U.S. the state National Guard are tasked with disaster relief. When disasters are large enough, the DoD will lend assistance. Interestingly enough, the disasters are "managed" not by FEMA or the Red Cross, or the military, but by the Forest Service/Dept. of Interior Incident Management Teams which mainly run large forest fires.

World-wide disasters are served by all branches of the U.S. military - I'm sure you've seen pictures of blackhawks dropping food/medical supplies to people in the Tsunami a few years ago.

Former Humanitarian wrote:

what do you mean, you wrote a paper on this?

paper for what? college? and editorial?

And no, there shouldn't be a humanitarian draft.

One of the things that defines the U.S. is freedom - and part of that is freedom to do what you want with your life (except in times of national emergency.) Don't require me, or anyone else, to do anything. We don't need compulsory sports training academies, we don't need compulsory service to teach our young a lesson, we don't need compulsory military service to bolster patriotism.

Finally, what we SHOULD do, is create more opportunities for people to serve. Nothing wrong with increasing the Peace Corps budget and adding more workers, creating better incentives (greater loan paybacks, education stipends, etc.) for those who do serve. That's what should be done.

The paper was for a graduate school program.

Obviously there are a lot of details that make such a proposal complicated. But on the broader issue of freedom, I would submit that the U.S. being far more engaged in the world in a humanitarian way IS a national security issue. As a military guy, I have done humanitarian (or supported other military folks doing humanitarian work) in Africa. My feeling on it was that it's great the U.S. is doing it, but it really shouldn't be the military doing it. I believe our military presence overseas should be minimized, while our goodwill presence maximized. A military presence carries a lot of baggage no matter what the military is doing. Yet everywhere I've been I hear the message: "The U.S. is the richest country on earth and it does so little for us."

Now, I know a lot of that criticism is inevitable no matter how much we do. But if our engagement worldwide is a security issue (an assumption), then why is it an infringement on liberty to draft someone into a humanitarian service corps and not an infringement to draft them into the military if need be?

from what i understand, there is no need for a draft - the peace corps is already extremely difficult to get into. we just need more opportunities for people to serve in a humanitarian way overseas.

nob wrote:

from what i understand, there is no need for a draft - the peace corps is already extremely difficult to get into. we just need more opportunities for people to serve in a humanitarian way overseas.

Yes, but there is arguably a long term benefit to exposing all Americans (rich, poor, black, white, etc...) to overseas service. I understand that you will end up grabbing a certain percentage of narcissistic malcontents. But you would also hopefully provide an experience that would change how many people view the world, too. Many politicians in this country get elected pandering to demographics that have never been outside the country.

It is not an effect you could measure over a short period of time. But over the course of a generation it could make a difference.

RD,

I'm curious about why you think the US needs to do more humanitarian work abroad. What's the rationale behind the question?

In Canada's case, as a small middle power, we've traditionally used peacekeeping as a way of establishing visibility and a measure of respect among the world community. Any "power" we manage to exercise in multi-lateral discussions is largely leveraged on that background of humanitarian engagement. I think this has enabled us to get a seat and strong voice in multi-lateral arrangements that we wouldn't have earned on the basis of population and size of our economy. So we can project power out of proportion with our size in the world community, in large part based on our established history (and indeed doctrine) of peacekeeping and humanitarianism.

The US, being arguably the only remaining superpower (for the moment, but not for long I expect), by contrast doesn't seem to need to rely on a resume of humanitarian exploits to enable it to exert power.

If I could take a different angle, one might argue that further foreign engagement, even on the basis (or under the guise) of US government-sponsored humanitarian aid would be viewed with considerable suspicion by much of the world.

Anyway, all that to try to get a "why" out of you.

RunDaddy wrote:...you would also hopefully provide an experience that would change how many people view the world, too. Many politicians in this country get elected pandering to demographics that have never been outside the country.

Ahhhhhh... OK this I could see as a significant benefit. As a general rule, Americans are ignorant about the world outside their borders, much more so than any other country. This, which is born from a feeling (an earned one) of superiority due to the US position of power around the world, will be the seed of the eventual decline of the American "empire" (to borrow from a movie title).

Just expressing opinions, of course, and not looking to convince anyone of anything.

RunDaddy:

Totally unrelated, but I'll ask it here since you're clearing keeping and eye on this thread. What do you know about running/living in Nairobi - Gigiri specifically. She and I are both pretty familiar with Kenyan life in general, but more from the upcountry perspective.

My wife and I are moving there in July for a couple of years and she'll probably attempt to continue running competitively. She's from Kapsabet originally, so she won't stick out like a white guy running on Limuru Rd. Is there anywhere in that area that's reasonably acceptable for training or is she going to be hopping a bus to Ngong for anything more than a 30 minute jog?

Anyway, any thoughts about the running or life in general in those parts would be great.

Mzungu

I don't think it's such a bad idea if combined with a military draft. The core theory of the "volunteer" Army is that you only have people that want to and are ready to go to war in the military. It seemed like a good idea at the time but I feel it leads to a "when you have a hammer everything looks like a nail" mentality.

Having a draft all the time with the draftees sent to active duty, national guard, or humanitarian purposes depending on need would have a lot of benefits.

* A certain percentage of the population from all walks of life would end up serving the country for 12-24 months. That unified experience would help the perspective of a LOT of people.

* A little disipline never hurt anyone, even though most of us chafe under it.

* Learning some teamwork, sacrifice, etc, would build some national unity and make a better workforce.

* Many local service groups and municipalities could use the help for during times when military service isn't needed. Lots of parks, hospitals, schools, etc, that could use a hand.

Despite the thought that a larger standing Military would make it more likely we go to war I think with a draft the opposite would be true. War is a nasty business that is sometimes necessary. Bad things are going to happen, people die, unfortunate colateral damage, etc. Going to war should mean the ultimate sacrifice for the nation. If that sacrifice includes you, your son, daughter, neighbor, boyfriend, girlfriend, etc, could be killed or maimed it's a more deliberate consideration than if it's someone you only see on TV.

mzungu wrote:

RunDaddy:

Totally unrelated, but I'll ask it here since you're clearing keeping and eye on this thread. What do you know about running/living in Nairobi - Gigiri specifically. She and I are both pretty familiar with Kenyan life in general, but more from the upcountry perspective.

My wife and I are moving there in July for a couple of years and she'll probably attempt to continue running competitively. She's from Kapsabet originally, so she won't stick out like a white guy running on Limuru Rd. Is there anywhere in that area that's reasonably acceptable for training or is she going to be hopping a bus to Ngong for anything more than a 30 minute jog?

Anyway, any thoughts about the running or life in general in those parts would be great.

Mzungu

Mzungu,

I'm certainly not the best qualified person to answer this question, but I'll tell you what I think. Every time I have been in Nairobi it was for work and I stayed in town (usually at the Serena or Holiday Inn). It was not safe to run from either of those hotels, plus it is very congested and if you didn't get mugged you would eventually get hit by a car. Never once driving around the city did I see someone running.

Gigiri, on the other hand, is probably the nicest suburb of Nairobi. It is where the new US Embassy is, as well as many other missions and the UN compound. It is not nearly as congested and is far safer. I never ran out there, but I know many Americans felt safe to do so.

The only time I ran outside in Nairobi was when I was staying/working at a joint British/Kenyan army camp on the outskirts of the city. I always felt safe around there and the people were always friendly, although I could sense that they were thinking with some amusement "who's this slow ass white guy running in our country".

Keith Stone wrote:

Having a draft all the time with the draftees sent to active duty, national guard, or humanitarian purposes depending on need would have a lot of benefits.

* A certain percentage of the population from all walks of life would end up serving the country for 12-24 months. That unified experience would help the perspective of a LOT of people.

* A little disipline never hurt anyone, even though most of us chafe under it.

* Learning some teamwork, sacrifice, etc, would build some national unity and make a better workforce.

* Many local service groups and municipalities could use the help for during times when military service isn't needed. Lots of parks, hospitals, schools, etc, that could use a hand.

Yes, these are all valuable things, and good qualities that we'd like to see out of society.

However, if you wanted a draft to accomplish these things, that must mean they are lacking in our society. And if true, why restrict the draft to young people?

If we want to build these things in our citizens, then EVERYONE should be subject to a draft for military or humanitarian duty, with obvious exceptions for advanced age/illness. I'll give prior military/Peace Corps experience a pass too.

If you're serious about people taking ownership in their society, then everyone has to do it. This can't be something that is forced on the young because the older generation wants them to learn attributes that they, the older folks, either didn't learn or didn't pass on.

Former Humanitarian wrote:If you're serious about people taking ownership in their society, then everyone has to do it. This can't be something that is forced on the young because the older generation wants them to learn attributes that they, the older folks, either didn't learn or didn't pass on.

Everyone will do it, taking into account those that are now young will eventually become old. Sure there is a gap at the moment, but over time that gap will disappear.