confessions of a single issue voter, military/society stuff, and our ability to adapt

[rm]

Except I'm not a single-issue voter -- rather, I'm arguing that we all are, just that in most cases that issue changes from election to election. I came to this conclusion having to code the 1000 photos of American soldiers who have died in Iraq that was in the New York Times earlier this month. This time around, my issue is Iraq -- which is sort of novel as I've always had to vote before based on my rights to my flesh. Now granted, the fact that Kerry is against the war in some measure makes this easy, as I agree with him on abortion and he the preferrable (if not correct) position on equal marriage rights as far as I am concerned.

But we have _got_ to get out of Iraq, and we've got to do it in the right way (which is not "slowly, gently" I don't think) and it's just absolutely the most pressing thing going on because of the massive debt it's incurred, what it's done to our relationship with our allies, what it's doing to further erode our image in the Islamic world, what it's doing to the soldiers over there and what it's doing to America's perception of its military. It's a big fucking mess, and it's all over everything.

The last time I saw my father, we got into a discussion about whether America should have compulsary military service for all citizens, not just in times of war, but at all times -- sort of like Israel, but I think that's a bad comparison because Israel could be said to be always at war, and the basis of our argument was not the "permanent war on terror" but the role military service and it's expectations have on shaping a society.

My father and his brothers were all in the military, although I don't know much about it. I think at least one brother served in Korea, and I don't know about the other. Korea ended while my dad was in basic in Texas, and after he did his time he used to the G.I. Bill to go to art school. So it's not like we have a military family or anything. None of the children have been military. But it was there to do and they did it for whatever their reasons (there are reams of things that just don't get discussed in my family, often I think because it just never occurs to people to do so).

At any rate, my father thinks it would be not so bad a thing if there was some sort of compulsary service in the U.S. Not a draft for this crap war (that let me remind you again, isn't even a war, and if Congress is supposed to be the ones with the power to declare war, how did we get into this multi-year mess of an action? Somewhere, a check and balance is not working so well methinks), but just in general, and I am inclined to agree with him.

I know a lot of people's first reaction to that is horror. I remember when that was my reaction to it growing up, when a girl in my class with dual citizenship in Israel talked in a panic, as far back as 6th grade, about what she was going to do, because she didn't want to carry a gun, or be in an army and didn't think she could survive basic and didn't want to put off college, etc. and in the end, I don't know what she did.

You can argue that it is wrong for a society to compel its members to do something they find distasteful, object to on moral or religious grounds, or just plain don't want to do. It's a hardship, it's slavery, it's just not fair. And I wouldn't disagree with you there either.

But a society, is to my eyes, like a company (I know, I know corporations are bad, waaaah), is a self-perpetuating orgasnism that must compell its components to ensure its survival, and must do things that other organisms maybe aren't so keen on. What did you have for breakfast?

But all in all, I'm okay with people's moral and religious objections and even with the "but America means freedom and that's not freedom" thing (I would posit that freedom isn't about doing only the shit you want to do when you want to do it, that the idea is both bigger and smaller than that and that we've confused self-reliance and choice with selfishness, laziness and isolation, but there's a rant that encompasses a lot of America's sins including our crap education systems and gated communities that belongs elsewhere (urban planning rant will have to wait for a week)), but if there's anything I hate and I think is a complete falacy it's when I have this conversation with someone and they say, "but I just couldn't bear it."

Yeah, actually you could. Even my pathetic weak little ass could. You wanna know why? Because when push comes to shove, we bear things, and we excell at it, that's what humans do. If compulsary (or even culturally expected) military service had been a part of the fabric of our country for the last twenty, fifty, one-hundred, two-hundred years -- you'd hate it, or you'd fear it, or whatever, but you'd do it, because that's your world. That's the funny thing about people, we adapt, to horror and hardship all the damn time, and while it can be argued that that is a great failing of the human race, that this is what allows us to perpetuate horror and hardship on each other, it's also why we're still here as a species.

When the World Trade Center collapsed, and Rudy Giulliani was asked about the number of dead, he famously said in a press conference, "It will be more than we can bear." It was a beautiful and eloquent thing to say. But we did bear it, as we bear all things.

Which brings me back to the fucked up mess that is our engagement in Iraq. What we're doing to the National Guard there sucks so bad, and it's a mess created by so many things other than our president misleading us into war. We've recruited for the National Guard for decades now on the basis of "you won't really have to go do anything too dangerous and here's money for school" and now we got a bunch of soldiers, who never thought they'd have to do anything like this, over there for these extended tours, families completely at loose ends for it, and it's just insane to me.

Giving soldiers money for college is part of treating our soldiers well -- a debt we owe, and I agree with it. But promoting the National Guard as an extreme sports college scholarship program is just one part of the massive emotional disaster that is Iraq. The National Guard is there to be used, and that its members and their families were ever reassured otherwise in the recruitment process infuriates me.

I think it's a fantastic ideal to have an all-volunteer force (despite all my musing above). How fucking noble, and yes, you get better more enthusiastic soldiers that way. That's the theory anyway. But when that force is recruited through misinformation and simple economic realities (and disparities) something's gone wrong, in a whole lot of places. And now we're stretched to thin, recruitment is way down and we have no-go zones in Iraq, which is just going to make this shit worse, not better when we decide to change that.

I'm not even sure what I'm arguing for or against here. But right now I feel like we have a lot of kids on the ground in Iraq who never expected anything like this and that there are a hell of a lot of people to blame for it. And our culture, that at least in my part of the country, involves being too good or wealthy to go into the military is definitely part of it.

I dunno. I'm frustrated. I don't remember when last I recognized my country.

P.S. -- I will be doing analysis of the debates at my job, which will prevent me from watching the debates in their entirety (I know that seems odd, but just trust me), so I will be writing up stuff here, but it will be incomplete, I will indicate which chunks I've seen though.

Comments

[sethg]

I like the slogan "Draft old men's money, not young men's bodies." If it's important for a wider cross-section of society to be represented in the military (and I agree that it is), then let's pay soldiers enough that a broader range of people see military service as a viable career.

I've heard that some of the families that live on military bases depend on food stamps in order to pay for their groceries. That's shameful.

[lllvis.livejournal.com]

It is true. A basic soldier does not bring home much for pay, often have to be on a waiting list for base housing meaning they have to pay rent off-base, and the family cannot eat at the chow hall like the soldier can (although many avoid it anyway.) That puts a tremendous strain on their meager pay.

[lllvis.livejournal.com]

FWIW...

Ya know, I agree we need to get out of Iraq, but it is the manner in which we do so that concerns me. To simply uproot and leave would be a disaster. That would have us leaving them with chaos and a huge mess we helped make for them to clean up. If one of our goals is to have some in that area become friendly to us again, that would be a bad move on our part.

I said before we went over there (Iraq or Afghanistan) that we're real good at the first part, the military action and the quelling of a foe. It's the 'after' part we tend to suck at. At least since WWII anyway.

And talk about distancing our allies, I think that would worsen the condition rather than help it.

Charlie Rangle's idea of reinstituting the draft I don't think will ever see any serious consideration. Not unless something far more horrific that the World Trace Center happens on our shores. Yes, it does suck what we've done with the National Guard, but we did it in '91 and they still have volunteers. Plus, to a degree, it is exactly what they signed on for.

And not to mention the spending involved to put our regular military ranks back to where it was as to help spare the National Guard would raise a tremendous hue and cry from the voters. Not that we're not still spending that kind of money, mind you, we are...it's just getting spent somewhere else. We wouldn't see it taken back from any other program to help fund an increase, we'd find yet another huge lump of money dumped on our debt. I'd rather not.

But even with a draft, the conditions that had people joining the armed forces during those times were still catering to economic realities and disparities. The Army was an alternative to jail in many cases. The phrase was (and may still be) that the Army made men out of bums...and vice versa.

For all the wars and conflicts we have sent young men to fight and die for, many of them never expected it. If you want blame there's plenty to go around, and not solely within our borders.

Finally, as for those who have objections to going to war or doing something deemed distasteful, I think you're right...when it comes to having to do it, I think most recognize something needs to be done even if they don't want to, and we do well at it.

So far as the election goes, I've not decided on a candidate yet. But in that you tend to agree with Kerry, soon I would like to pose a couple of questions and get your take, if that's ok?

[rm.livejournal.com]

Sure, although I will add that I'm not advocating we cut in run in Iraq, but rather that we're there, it's fucked up, we need to stop pussyfooting around (I'm still harping on the no-go zones, yes), do _something_ and then get out with some efficiency.

Kerry, as far as I can tell, has no actual concrete plan about this (and not even the common sense to say "the situation on the ground keeps changing, we don't even know what it will look like in January, so I can't say, but based on what's going on right now, here's what I'd do"), and will probably drive me batshit should he actually have the opportunity to deal with the thing, but at least he knows we shouldn't be there.

[lanthinel.livejournal.com]

And, to be honest, Kerry can't formulate a "kick ass plan" for dealing with a lot of things because he doesn't have immediate access to the intelligence base and classified aspects that only the DoD and (presumably) the President would have. Making plans based upon what he sees in the Senate, talking to contacts, and watching the news becomes, at that point, armchair military planning.

But that's not exactly something you can acknowledge as a challenger to an incumbent, who supposedly has those intelligence resources, and can easily say "Well, if that's your argument, I should be re-elected."

[ali-highland.livejournal.com]

I doubt that universal military service would help much you would just have huge numbers of people devoting a lot of time and effort to avoiding it.

What I do think is a good idea is mass service, where people serve the nation/community for 2 years, new college grads serve as teachers in inner city or rural schools, those not attending college have jobs serving in hospitals or schools, maybe as forest rangers, peace corps, anything so long as the theme is giving something to society, of course those that wanted to would be free to serve in the military. Working for a private corporation would not count.

It seems to me that what we are failing to instill in young people is a sense of collective ownership of our societies and the world as a whole.

I have only really started to feel like this is my world and I am responsible for it in the last few years, untill then it seemed to belong to the older generation.

[rm.livejournal.com]

Nod -- I argued for national service in the discussion with my Dad, but wondered if that meant the educated and wealthy people would get to teach kids to read, while the less fortunate or connected got stuck in the army. some inequalities are never going away, nor should they, but that hypothetical situation doesn't solve one of the things that's frustrating me, which is a national notion that certain gifts (money and education) entitle us to a less onorous burden in the upkeep of our society.

[ali-highland.livejournal.com]

When in fact those gifts should make us expect to play a greater part in the upkeep of our society.

From those that have received much, much should be expected.

That is a notion our victorian forebearers understood much better than we do.

[rm.livejournal.com]

That is a notion our victorian forebearers understood much better than we do.

I think that's debatable, and to the degree that this was true was also mitigated by the rigid class structure and attendant attitudes of the time. But I think they at the least believed it of themselves and aspired to it. And we do lack that.

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

This is a blanket response to everything:

I happen to have some knowledge of the workings of the Guard, and while I understand the sense that we did, "sign up for this," in a lot of ways, we didn't.

And for those of us who signed up more than a decade ago... the rules were drastically changed.

Prior to this present fracas, the last time a Guard unit was mobilized, in large numbers, to a combat zone was Korea (some smaller units were sent to Vietnam, but the 40th Division in Korea was the last big one).

When the Guard, as a regulated subset of the Army was created, back in 1916, it was as a backstop, in cases of extreme need. The World Wars gave a sense of just what sort of need would be required for a call-up. Guard rank was not even, always recognised by the feds (Truman made Col. in the Missouri Guard, but was never promoted past Capt (perhaps Major, but I think Capt... my references are not handy, so it might be either, because it was a state rank).

In the administration of Bush Pere, the Reserve component was redesigned, in the interest of cost/efficiency (armies are the last of the medieval societies, in which labor is cheap) and so the big ticket items, e.g. armored divisions, stayed in the Active Army, and things which were people (and so high day to day cost) like MPs and Intel, were moved to the Reserves... the theory being they would only be needed in those sorts of numbers if the (increasingly less likely) world went to hell in a handbasket and Europe started to eat itself.

Now, the Reserves have always been recruited like JV... they are to backstop the Army, come hell or high water.

The Guard, on the other hand, was for grave national emergency, and local problems (Riots, Hurricanes, Floods, Earthquakes... I have seen guardsmen sent to all of those), and only for something like WW2 to be called up for overseas duties.

But there is a systemic problem... for things like Iraq, the all-important Combat Support Services (like transportation) and the even more important Combat Services (like MPs and Intel, esp HUMINT) had been moved to the Guard.

Which had caused a fair bit of strain before That Tuesday... what with people being asked to go to Bosnia for a year, and Saudi for six months (which was happening in the late Ninties).

Then came this. Most Guardsmen were willing to go, are still willing to go, if the cause is just, and lots don't think this one is.

We've agreed to let the Gov't use us as markers in a Great Game, but where the Nation spends money, we spend blood. Is it unfair that we ask the reasons for that expenditure be good, and productive?

****

A draft (which is not being discussed with intent to pass, but rather to point out the desperate pass to which we are heading) can only work if it has no loopholes. It can't allow for any exemptions. There are some disturbing trends in the services (see, "The Making of the Corps" for some insights on this) which a draft might (and I mean might) alleviate, or prevent. But the burden must be equally shared.

The problem with the draft at its end, wasn't that we had one, it was that it was unfair. For $300 a rich man could buy his way out of the Civil War Draft, but he had to find someone to take his place. In the seventies all one needed was the money to get into college, and the Gov't would find him for you. His family didn't even get the $300.

If that happens again, the draft riots in New York may look more like the Boston Tea Party.

****

How do we get out? Carefully. We have sown dragon's teeth in Iraq, it will be years before careful management can wither the soldiers spawned from them.

It needs a widespread coalition of nations, it needs the US to take a back seat. It needs to not let those who want unrest rule the cities, and take refuge in them to attack the government.

In a word, it needs a real U.N.

And it won't be cheap.

But if we fail Iraq, that failure will be pointed to, but those outside Iraq, as our intent, and dragon's teeth will sprout from all over. We may no longer be able to win, but we might avoid losing.

And more troops will die... cost of doing business, and that is something we signed up for.

TK

[rm.livejournal.com]

I happen to have some knowledge of the workings of the Guard, and while I understand the sense that we did, "sign up for this," in a lot of ways, we didn't.

Exactly the point i was trying to make in there _somewhere_ (today's post is one of my less cogent).

Aie... more later... I don't actually technically have Internet access at work

[heron61.livejournal.com]

Wrt Iraq, I'm increasingly thinking that the US role in Iraq is much like the US role in Beirut before the US pulled out of there - we make people angry and provide targets. Given that the US already completely lost control of almost half of Iraq. This situation is starting to look like Vietnam. Pulling out rapidly would be a mess, but I'm far from certain that it would be more of a mess than staying. I'm also guessing that a rapid exist would reduce both US and Iraqi deaths, which is (to me at least) the most important factor in deciding what the US should do about this wretched mess. Doing this would obviously be quite ugly, but I think that the only options left are ugly ones.

Wrt national service, given that I regard nationalism as a deeply terrible idea and consider patriotism to be a particularly dangerous form of insanity, I will never directly serve any nation in any capacity. If we had a reasonable world government (ie not the US as world cop and not the current incoherent mess that is the UN) I would be willing to serve, but a nation-state is just where I happen to be living, not someplace that I owe anything more than my taxes. Also, my view of the military is astoundingly negative (people employed by the government to kill or be ready to kill other people is a good nutshell description) and forcing anyone to join the military is from my PoV an utterly immoral act.

[rm.livejournal.com]

If I remove the military from this discussion (note the National Service branch of the conversation, where everyone would be required to teach or somehow do something that benefitted the society for a proscribed period of time) -- how would you feel?

my arguments here aren't about patriotism. You'll note I don't mention the word once -- that's all you. They are however about the social contract, and that I believe we _may_ well be obligated to serve the society in which we live, and that there _may_ be a number of valid arguments for legistlating that, which I _may_ or may not agree with. My point being, our nation happens to be our social unit -- call it mandatory state servie or community service, I don't really care. You don't have to be a patriot or a nationalist to say "hey, there's a social contract between people of a society, and maybe that means we should all pay into it in some fashion".

[heron61.livejournal.com]

My social contract with the government is that I obey most of the laws and pay taxes. Asking people to pay money is not much of a sacrifice as long as the taxes won't impoverish them (which is why I firmly believe taxes should be far higher on the wealthy than on the poor, especially since I also believe that no one has a right to be wealthy if others are poor, especially if the wealthy person directly or indirectly employees the poor people). However, asking people to work for the government instead of being able to choose their own job is from my PoV, slavery (indentured servitude might be a more accurate term, since it is only done for a limited time). Then again, I feel absolutely no obligation to aid or support any institution.

In practical terms, if the government wishes to have people work for it, it should pay competitive wages (the funds for which could be easily acquired by raising corporate taxes) and provide good working conditions. Substituting slavery for a positive work environment means that the government doesn't have to pay competitive wages or provide work conditions that actually attract workers. I see this as a very bad thing indeed.

Fundamentally I trust do not trust either governments or any other large institutions (like churches or large corporations) and believe that they will all casually use and abuse people if given the chance to do so. National service would give the government far more power to make the lives of every citizen miserable and I see nothing good coming from this.

[rm.livejournal.com]

I'm not talking about your social contract with the government (at least anymore), I'm talking about your social contract with the other peopel who live in the same society as you.

Fundamentally I trust do not trust either governments or any other large institutions (like churches or large corporations) and believe that they will all casually use and abuse people if given the chance to do so.

Hardly an unreasonable opinion, but why? You make it sound (and I know this can't be true) like the problem is the size. Let me tell you, small institutions can be just as abusive, and large ones can be relatively benign.

For someone who often seems pretty keen on our distopian future, I really don't get the rigidity with which you react to some things that seem to be inevitable stops along the way.

[heron61.livejournal.com]

In part, it is size, because large institutions simply have a greater ability to cause harm than small ones. Also, accountability issues are more difficult and (perhaps most importantly) reforming a large institution is a longer and more complex process than reforming a small one.

For someone who often seems pretty keen on our distopian future, I really don't get the rigidity with which you react to some things that seem to be inevitable stops along the way.

I'm not certain what you mean, could you explain this comment.

Also, I definitely stand by my statement that national service would be used as a substitute for having government jobs that someone would actually want to work at. Do you disagree?

[rm.livejournal.com]

I do disagree. The reality is that many government jobs require years of both training and experience, and national service would not be an effective manner in which to fill these jobs.

In some cases though, I think you are correct, and one possible effect is that national service could serve to make jobs we currently disrespect or ignore be seen in a more positive or advantageous light -- a definite plus for those who wind up in low level government jobs and find an inabilty to move out of them within the current system.

You do bring up something great here, tangeantally which is Oh My God Our Civil Service System is completely fucked up.

As to my other comment, my understanding you are protechnology and urbanization to a degree that many people find negative (although I am largely and perhaps entirely on your side there), but for those things to happen, they frequently involve a lot of the other things you have significant problems with (large corporations) and I want to know how you reconcile those ideas.

Also, I like to use the word distopian.

[heron61.livejournal.com]

You do bring up something great here, tangeantally which is Oh My God Our Civil Service System is completely fucked up.

I completely agree, but have no idea how to significantly improve things.

As to my other comment, my understanding you are protechnology and urbanization to a degree that many people find negative (although I am largely and perhaps entirely on your side there), but for those things to happen, they frequently involve a lot of the other things you have significant problems with (large corporations) and I want to know how you reconcile those ideas.

Large corporations are at best a necessary evil. As I see it, all businesses (especially large ones) should be carefully regulated to force them to treat their employees, their customers, and the environment properly. Similar, the government also needs to be carefully regulated (shich is naturally a more difficult prospect). While I can see definite disadvantages to the idea, David Brin's idea of a "Transparent Society" would potentially solve most problems of government accountability. Also, I recently read an interesting piece about business that made me think that perhaps there might be alternatives to current corporate models that might be far more responsive and considerably less problematic. My preference would be for the US economy to be a somewhat more extreme form of Scandinavian democratic socialism, with all essential services nationalized and subject to strict price controls. My only caveat would be that the government would also need to be seriously pro-technology, but that's already necessary, since such a huge proportion of basic research in all fields uses government funding.

[drfardook.livejournal.com]

I'm pretty sleep deprived so I hope I don't sound too loopy.

I don't feel any sort of commitment to a nation that isn't committed to its citizens. The lack of a national health care system, a working welfare system, free and equal education at all levels, a criminal system that attempts to reform rather than brutalize, any protection for workers, and sane drug/vice laws doesn't exactly create a culture of social responsibility.

Asking for two or three years of service in exchange for getting my higher education paid for 100%, having my rent and essential services kept at a level that's reasonable for my income, and knowing that if I get hit by a car I won't have to call a bankruptcy lawyer immediately upon regaining consciousness sounds reasonable.

Spending two years telling high school kids that sex is for filthy, dirty sinners... no thank you.

The government dosen't have much of a commitment towards its citizens, why should we feel any commitment toward it? Many of us do feel a commitment to our communities, however we define them, its just that we don't have any sense that our government is a community as much as an enemy.

[rm.livejournal.com]

Now here's an argument telling me to go shove it that's worth something.

_thank you_.

Asking for two or three years of service in exchange for getting my higher education paid for 100%, having my rent and essential services kept at a level that's reasonable for my income, and knowing that if I get hit by a car I won't have to call a bankruptcy lawyer immediately upon regaining consciousness sounds reasonable.

Agreed. Now where can I get some?

Meanwhile, we can we do to make more peopel give a damn about their communities and do something for them -- as well as perhaps view their community as having a wider radius than they traditionally do? (Somewhere this gets back to the unwritten urban planning rant).

[lanthinel.livejournal.com]

I've used the "organism" metaphor before myself for society. Personally, if I accept this metaphor, then I have to acknowledge that, as an organism, it seeks to assure its continuance and "growth" regardless of consequences unless steps are taken to control and limit it. Like an organism, it fights for survival, often times (depending on the scale of perspective) in as primal and beastial a manner as possible.

You can argue that eventually the society ultimately reaches some kind of balance in the ecology it's working within, but we're talking (still using this metaphor) about the ecology of societies, while societies are composed of individuals. Given that I much prefer to focus on what individuals need than on what the "society" demands for its survival, maybe I'm not a well-formed "republican machine" (to draw up a term from social efforts for educating citizens in the 19th century) or maybe I am.

I also think that this administration can't be trusted with not abusing any kind of across the board "national service" (let alone military service) program. I haven't trusted W's government since I found out about what happened on 9/11. My first thought was, What will they use this as an excuse to do?

Would I think differently given another administration that didn't strike me as being so skeevy (my family and I haven't liked W ever since he was governor, and I remember his campaign against Ann Richards)? National service in terms of helping educate people is a noble idea, but I don't think trust those with the real money and power in our society to live up to the ideals (let alone the level of planning and ability to form citizen-minded regulations) such a program would require, in my opinion.

Don't worry, I'm not as cogent as I might like to be either at the moment.

[rm.livejournal.com]

Oh man... no, there is no way I would ever ever ever advocate any sort of national service under this crazy administration. Even for the sake of discussion.

Ick ick bad. Yeah.

Honestly, this administration is the best argument I've ever seen for hardcore libertarianism, just... ugh.

[lanthinel.livejournal.com]

Well, yeah, I didn't figure you were going in that direction, but I felt the need for the proviso in my comment.

[deslea.livejournal.com]

Thank you for writing this - this post and its responses are the most interesting and stimulating things I've read all week.

[rm.livejournal.com]

Wow, thanks. And here I am gearing up to write an apology for starting a discussion with a less than cogent statement and argument.

[lanthinel.livejournal.com]

I don't think an apology is neccessary. Heh. Although if you wish to revisit this topic in a different way, I'd be interested in reading it.

[rm.livejournal.com]

I don't think it is either. And I like the discussion that occured. I just feel I was sloppy, and I'm annoyed with myself, as I feel like that readers I do have who come here soley for politics and economics (and there are some) deserved me making more sense or explaining more clearly why I wasn't choosing to be terribly specific/cogent/whatever.

[rezendi.livejournal.com]

Data point: The consensus among the people in my French class last month (who were largely from countries which require various degrees of national service, and of an age to know a whole lot about it) is that such service is usually a waste of time for both the country and the person, and results in a massive wasteful bureacracy plus unmotivated people marking time in jobs they don't want and aren't wanted in. From what I could gather this applied to both military and civilian service.

[rm.livejournal.com]

Yay datapoints.

Which raises the question -- is that avoidable... anywhere?

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

Yes.

Though I'm not certain some of the posters above will like the conclusions.

1: The oath of fealty runs both ways. That so many people feel they owe the Gov't nothing but scorn (and Reagan had a lot to do with that, it may be the most enduring, God forbid, aspect of his tenure) means that those in public service (esp. those who entered for altruism, and get a decent, but not truely commensurate, wage, for what they do) are less than happy with those they are trying to help.

Accepting that one will be underpaid is one thing, being mocked for it, and treated poorly, well it makes one cranky. This sets up a positive feedback loop, and the situation degenerates.

Where a group feels a common obligation to a common end/good, then there is positive feedback in the other direction, and the social network of the civil service improves.

As for National service which works, I can think of two examples, but both are of a single type (military) an homogenous culture(mostly... though with a decided mix, and one is failing, but the failure is noteworthy for what it show of the issue we are discussing) and almost universal acceptance of the need.

In addition both places feel themselves at great risk.

They are... Israel, and Swizterland.

Of the two Switzerland is doing the better job. Service is compulsory (CO status is gainable, but frowned on, and has repercussions in civil life). The Service, while obligatory is not onerous, at least in terms of time. Basic and specialty training, a couple of weeks a year, and it last for the rest of one's adult life. It is one of the warps in the weave of social life. One's fellows are comfortable.

When one is too old for regular service, one moves to a local unit, guarding the town/canton in which one lives. If one pursues rank, it takes more time in a year, but has carryover benefits in the civil world.

Israel: Troubled, mostly because there is a disconnect in the system, it isn't universal. Yeshivot, and the very Orthodox can get out it. That they are paid to go to Yeshiva, and they tend to be those who are most militant in using the Army, as well as living where the Army has to defend them, means those who serve, or whose sons have to serve, are a tad resentful.

The Orthodox are demanding the State care for them, and protect them, but they aren't willing to lift their part of the load.

So far the pressing need (Isreal, while it may be handling it poorly, is under siege) and sense of common identity (the various Swiss are Swiss sort of first, and sort of second, the Israelis seem to be sort of Sabra, and sort of Jew, all at once... even the Goyim) have kept things from falling apart, but the tensions which wracked the US over the draft of the underprivileged (even when those draftees were being, by and large, excluded from Viet-nam) are starting to show in Israel.

With the need for the coalition to form a Gov't the Right has more sway than it deserves, and the situation is heading to a boil.

Outside of that, a single point of service, which can either be agreed to (a non-universal draft, with no exceptions) or seen as absolutely imperative for the national survivial, National Service will be seen as a tax, a burden on those selected. Given the number of jobs which need skills, those jobs in National Service will be mostly scut work, and as such the scions of privilege will get strings pulled to land cushy ones, wherein they build networks of support (a la Skull and Bones) and they get ahead, while everyone else gets a tan, clearing brush in Montana.

TK