That’s not what I wish at all, and your statement says far more about what YOU believe concerning the military than about my beliefs. If you’ve spent any amount of time around folks who’ve served, you’d know that they are representative of the full spectrum of political beliefs. Furthermore, your alleged “indoctrination” has done very little to change such diversity (proof being the number of whistle-blowers, homosexuals, etc. we’ve seen in the past few years). Additionally, research suggests that most beliefs are firmly set by the age of military service, and thus would not be subject to great change.

Let’s suppose members of a volunteer military are predisposed to hold similar beliefs. A period of compulsory military service by all would ensure an even greater spectrum of opinions and attitudes than already exists. South Korean and Israeli politics and culture quite clearly show that compulsory military service doesn’t result in one dominant political ideology (just look at the great controversy in Israel over settlement of West Bank, etc.).

The fact remains, a shared experience (such as military service) is something that can increase tolerance, understanding, and unity without destroying diversity.

Finally, the nonsense that’s been blathered concerning Germany and Prussia fails to account for our modern freedom of discourse (Internet, etc.) and the fact that, unlike Hitler’s Germany, we don’t put children through military training. It is that last feature, militarization of children, that is the key feature of violent, totalitarian regimes, in Europe, Asia, and Africa.

Parents having expectations of their kids is very different from government having expectations of its citizens.

The idea that we should all serve in the military because you wish to foster unity by using the military as a tool of indoctrination is very problematic to me.

I do not view government as existing primarily to tell me what to think and feel and be. You can call that a “social contract” if you like, but that doesn’t make it a legitimate social contract, and it doesn’t change the fact that what you are proposing is an abusive use of force.

The military exists to defend the nation from external threat, not to enable high ranking government entities to control or manipulate the population. That sort of “unity” is not only unethical, but is the stuff of dystopia.

If you want genuine unity, you have to provide genuine vision, and persuade everyone to sign on.”

Nonsense. Of course there is a balance between persuasion and coercion, but make no mistake, those on this post that seem to be advocating absolutely against coercion are advocating for anarchy and against civilization.

The State quite legitimately uses coercion to keep people from murdering and raping others. No sane person would suggest we be limited merely to “persuading” people against those things.

When we look at the successful integration of immigrants in past US history, we see a few things…Yes, people were able to celebrate their cultural heritage (and that’s great!), but parents also expected their kids to learn the native language and undergo some degree of assimilation. They were expected to pay taxes and carry forms of Identification, and becoming a citizen was something in which to take pride.

Today, none of those things are expected.

I advocate mandatory civil or military service because if one wants the benefits of membership in a group (Nation, State, Civilization), one must contribute to that group, or it will soon cease to exist. There is nothing “totalitarian” or “coercive” about such a Social Contract–something the Founding Fathers and those from whom they drew inspiration well knew.

Some of you need to study your history more closely.

It would make more sense to try to gain national unity by appointing a day for everyone to carry an umbrella to ward of meteors.

Peasants were only ever employed for strictly local defence and ward holding, which included military service accounted for only about one in twelve of all tenures. Townsmen guarded their own walls. South of the Loire, where the feudal system never existed, armies were wholly composed of “free companies.”

By the ancien régime, I meant the early modern period, between the end of the Wars of Religion and the Revolution, when Frederick the Great could say that the ordinary citizen should be unable to tell, if his country was at war or not. Jane Austen’s novels are a description of middle-class life, during the Napoleonic wars.

Excuse me, romanticizing and fantasies aside, conscription was the rule and not the exception during the middle ages. Peasants were forced to serve and form the feudal lord armies.

Under the ancien regime, the defence of the nation was seen as the rôle of the nobility and the sword was everywhere the badge of the gentleman. With the Revolution, universal conscription was the logical counterpart to universal suffrage.

Forcing people to be “united” is totalitarianism.

If you want genuine unity, you have to provide genuine vision, and persuade everyone to sign on.

Trying to dissolve cultural divisions through the use of governmental power is not much different from trying to end a war when you don’t actually have what it takes to gain a legitimate victory. There are only two options: either you persuade through political and diplomatic processes – or you commit atrocities.