Fifth and final section of The Thread Upon the Loom is posted. Comments and literary criticism, from those so inclined, would be appreciated!

For the fun of it, I'm posting an essay I wrote for the Scholarships for Military Children program (through the Base Commissary). The question was "Should all able-bodied citizens be required to serve at least two years in the military? Why or why not?" As this is something about which I've thought a bit and upon which I hold a rather strong opinion, it seemed easy enough...until I saw the word limit. 500 words is not nearly enough space to give the question an adequate treatment. So I left implicit my exemption of women and only hinted at a militia force. I think that service should be required in either the state militia (i.e., the National Guard) or the federal military, preferably the militia. Finally, I merely present it as an ideal. I do not know that it would be either possible or desirable to implement this as the American culture stands now. But if everyone had been eligible for the states' militias and trained for that end from the beginning, this whole problem would have been avoided. Ah, hindsight. Anyhow, enjoy, and I'd appreciate your thoughts or arguments.

For the Sake of Freedom

For a land that takes pride in its freedoms, universal compulsory military service would seem a contradiction. Such a requirement is, however, the best preserver of those very freedoms held so dear. It is my thesis that all able-bodied men should be required to serve at least two years in the state militia (the National Guard) or in the federal military.

The central idea of the social-contract theory of government on which America is founded is of people banding together for mutual defense from enemies foreign and domestic. The individual is helpless against his gathered enemies without a community, and he must do his part to protect himself and to honor and protect those who have protected him. Though some would object that the choice to serve should be left to the individual, this undermines the very foundation of government. Our constitutional republic is founded on the premise of working for the mutual good, and this necessitates some sacrifice. One who refuses to participate in the common defense quite simply refuses to actively participate in society. He wishes to reap the benefits while providing nothing for its maintenance.

Another objection to compulsory service is the potential for abuse. The Founding Fathers, however, reduced this possibility by vesting the powers of declaring war and of commanding the army in separate branches. As Congress is itself a representative of the people and the states, and the President is elected by the electoral votes of the states’ people, and the American soldier swears allegiance to the Constitution—not Congress or the President, the American system largely avoids the potential that the military would be used as a tyrannical force.

Another major problem is that some would claim exemption on the grounds that their religious principles do not allow them to kill in any fashion. In the first case, they can be easily granted a non-combat position. A continued objection to non-combat service on the grounds that it contributes to the war effort would be invalidated by the fact that even as civilians they would contribute whenever they pay taxes. America at war necessarily involves all Americans; those who wish are free to petition their elected representatives to end it, but until it is ended, they all must work corporately or corporately fail.

Requiring military service of all men may be difficult to implement at first, but would ultimately cause more people to embrace their duty to their country and their fellow citizens with greater fervor and patriotism. All Americans must be willing to sacrifice for their own families and for each other, and they must be raised valuing the merits of sacrifice. An expectation of future military service will help achieve that goal.