National Service: The New Push or a Great Leap Forward?

I have recently heard Defense Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen amongst other former DOD types advocate for Universal Government Mandated Service for all 18-22 year olds. I have opposed that before and since they seem to be promoting it again, I thought a review of rational reasons against it is worth a try. I fear that if this idea gets any legs it will drag this country into the sewer of history. This analysis is in no way any form of ad hominem attack; it is however an attempt to logically frame a counter-view in light of the now apparently a common-call from former DOD leaders for this idea of Universal Service.

Let me begin by summarizing my reasons against this proposal.

Costs: Overall as I have examined before, the costs of enrolling, managing, feeding, and directing a mass of 18-22 year olds, assuming no outs for any reason, exceeds $T per year! That now is on par with the total Government Budget. This should be the first question asked. DOD is costly enough, the idea of placing tens of millions of 18-22 year olds into Government programs would collapse our economy in short order. Whether this is reflective of classic DOD spending mentality of not is questionable, however it does reflect a broad and consistent lack of full thought on the proposal by all Generals, Admiral and Secretaries concerned.

Loss of Economic Productivity: Many entrepreneurs start in the late teens and early twenties. I recognize that entrepreneur thinking is not fostered in the Military, just the opposite, but it is that thinking and mind set, tat risk taking, that provides the future economic engine of our country. Take Edison, Jobs, Gates, and the like and send them at their prime to sweep streets in El Paso and one wonders how much we lost.

Loss of Educational Continuity: As any educational professional knows if one takes a high performing High School student out of the productive environment and place them into a prison like entity, after all it is the Government and managed by the Government, their enthusiasm will drop like a brick! Why would anyone desire to destroy the creativity of youth in this manner?

Loss of Entrepreneurial Capability: Entrepreneurs start early. The are motivated by challenges to create, to produce. Sending entrepreneurs into 3 year mandated Government programs is four years of entrepreneurial loss.

Cost of Delay on Education: Delaying education, taking someone from High School and sending them to some backwater for four years is costly. When they get back home they are now competing with the Chinese students who took their place and fact an escalating tuition rate, four years more costly than what they would have faced without the Government internments.

Failure to do Anything Beneficial: Do we forget the Stimulus jobs and shovel ready projects so quickly. What Government effort is ever productive? Perhaps some of NIH, but that is the exception. Most Government workers sort yellow papers from green ones, unless that is perhaps too much. So we are asking these young people to do just what? Gates suggested teaching. Has he not heard of unions? An 18 year old teaching what? To whom? These suggestions keep coming forth with not a single thought of how they would ever be implemented. No wonder our wars are often in chaos from the top down.

Loss of International Competitiveness: Imagine if the Chinese head of government mandated that instead of going to college and competing in the world economy that the 18-220 year olds go to the country side and farm and teach. Oh yes, that did happen under Mao, the Great Leap Forward. How did that d for China? Not that well. Lost a generation. Now China sees its youth as its future, not some fodder for Governmental control. They would rather set up new companies; compete with US technology and entities. China wants to lead and it will lead through its youth. It would never think of another Great Leap Forward. So why does our ex-Military higher up seem to think it is such a great idea, have they not read Mao? Or have they?

These are just a few of the reasons that such a proposal is devoid of merit. But is speaks a great deal of the mindset of those who propose, and in a somewhat terrifying manner.

Now the men proposing this seem to be speaking from the same script. Not uncommon in Washington, especially today. The all seem never to have held a real job, never have been in the position of creating jobs and have been masters of the political environment in DC. They all seem to echo the statement: “18-22 years olds should pay back their country…”

Now I do not know what they think 18-22 year olds have costs the US of late but given the state of the US school system they may be demanding a refund. In addition they may face a $250,000 or more price tag to further their education so as to best allow them to be productive members of our country. They are the ones who hopefully are investing their time and talents into productive results. That is the essence of a capitalist society; we want people to invest their youth into things that will continue to drive us forward. By saying that they have a duty to pay back at 18 seem almost laughable. One wonders what salon they have all been gathering these thoughts in.

Instead of entering into this foray, which the Military types are all too often ill-equipped to comment, costs and sources of revenue never seem to be in their fore, they should be having a conversation on how does the US defend its interests in the 21^st Century. Threats have evolved, the most recent wars are examples, and we need a mindset to enter successfully into that fray. The Military needs effective covert operations, it needs high quality intelligences often gathered via classic human Intel sources. We may have the best satellites but we need the best and most up to date human Intel, however we can obtain it. The Navy has a schizophrenic challenge. On the one hand it must defend against large scale players such as China so that threats cannot be made too effective but at the same time they must support the covert ops efforts. The Navy must also provide flexible platforms for deployment, defense and offense. More thought on these issues and less on another Great Leap Forward would be useful.