Critical Issues Round Table January 5, 2007

Great Expectations!

A Call for National Service

A Critical Issues Round Table White Paper

Brigadier General Alan B. Salisbury, USA (Ret), Chairman

“Ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country!”

John F. Kennedy, Inaugural Address, January 20, 1961

“This is the great ideological struggle of the 21^st century, and it is the calling of our generation”

George W. Bush, Address to Military Officers’ Association of America, September 5, 2006

On May 29^th, 2004, the nation paused to dedicate a new memorial in Washington to those who served and those who died in World War II, a war that was fought by Americans across the far reaches of the globe to free the world from fascism and totalitarianism. Virtually all Americans contributed to that noble cause, including those who wore uniforms and bore arms, those who manned the factories of the “arsenal of democracy,” and those who bore the burdens of everyday sacrifices in almost every aspect of their lives. They have been called the “Greatest Generation,” in recognition not just of their sacrifices, but also of their strong character and sense of duty that united Americans from all walks of life in the common goal of victory.

A New Century, A New Generation, A New War

Today the nation is engaged in a new kind of war that was initially called the “War on Terrorism” or the “Global War on Terrorism,” and, more recently, has been referred to as the “Long War.” Names for the war aside, radical fundamentalist organizations, using the tactics of terrorism, represent perhaps the greatest threat to freedom and democracy since the fascist powers of World War II. Indeed, former CIA director James Woolsey was among the first to describe the current struggle as no less than “World War IV,” while attaching the “World War III” designation to the Cold War against communism and the Soviet Union. Whether or not we choose to call it a World War, the ongoing long war is truly global in scope and the stakes for our way of life and the future of freedom and democracy are undeniably no less than the perils that faced the world in the mid-twentieth century.

A new generation of Americans is now deployed in this “first war of the twenty-first century.” As part of an all-volunteer force, they are actively engaged in combat in two major campaigns, one in Iraq and one in Afghanistan. Concurrently, of course, our forces also remain deployed in a host of other hot spots around the world.

What kind of generation is the current one? Only time will tell, but the early indications are promising. It is a generation in which a young professional football player walked away from millions of dollars to join the Army Rangers in Afghanistan, only to fall in the line of duty. It is a generation in which a young husband and wife, both graduates of the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, served as company commanders in Iraq; when the husband was killed and the wife was urged by his parents not to return to Iraq, she responded, “I have to go back. I promised my soldiers I would bring them home.” And it is a generation in which young men and women recuperating at Walter Reed from the loss of arms and legs in combat are vigorously fighting to return to active duty or even to rejoin their units.

The seeds of greatness are there in the current generation, just as they are in every generation of Americans. In many ways, the times in which they live separate one generation from another. But the times do not so much shape the generation, as the generation, given the proper leadership, can shape the times. One thing is clear: when called upon to serve, and when the cause is clear and noble, Americans have answered and will answer that call en masse. The difference today is that no one has asked!

A Shared Burden

As our founding fathers taught us by their personal sacrifices, freedom isn’t free! Who should bear the burden and pay the price of freedom?The obvious answer is that it must be a shared burden among all Americans.

While the threat to freedom and democracy in the current war has already reached our shores with, arguably, a greater impact on us and our way of life than Pearl Harbor, this war is being fought by relatively few Americans. An exceptionally small “all-volunteer” force of active duty military is shouldering the primary burden, augmented by Reserve and National Guard units called (and called again….and again!) to active duty. Meanwhile, other Americans are told to go about their business and lead their normal lives.

The all-volunteer force has enjoyed many successes, particularly with respect to its magnificent performance in battle. But it has not been a success by the measure of equity. While patriotism certainly is a major motivation for most of those who serve, the composition of today’s military does not reflect a broad cross section of American society. As a Marine Corps General recently noted, most of the elite or Ivy League colleges had few to none of their graduates entering the military this year. And, as at least one cartoonist has observed, today’s military has an equally disproportionate under-representation of children of Washington policy makers.

In the final analysis, a military that is representative of the population as a whole is right for America. It is right because the nation can ill-afford to allow an ever-widening gap between its military and society at large. It is right because defending one’s country must be seen as an obligation shared by all as opposed to a function that is, in essence, contracted out by paying others to serve. Those who enjoy the enormous benefits of freedom must be prepared to share the burden of defending freedom.

The stresses currently being experienced by the active forces, the Reserves and the National Guard have, once again, led to calls from some members in Congress for reinstituting a draft. Certainly a draft would make it easier to increase the size of today’s military, and there is increasing agreement on both sides of the aisle on the need for a substantial increase. But there is little support within the Congress for a draft which could bring with it as many problems as it might seem to solve. Politics aside, while a draft would produce a military that is more representative of the American population, it would continue to impose the burden of service on a relative few. A broad program of national service offers a way to get a larger segment of American society involved in the current conflict through an appropriate expansion of the opportunities for service beyond the purely military.

National Service

The concept of national service is not a new one, to be sure, but it is an idea whose time has come!

As the President noted in an address to the American Legion last August, “The war we fight today is more than a military conflict.” It is as much an ideological and societal struggle as a military one. In truth, military strength alone cannot ensure that this nation and its ideals of freedom and democracy will survive in the face of growing threats and challenges. Many other factors contribute to our overall strength as a nation and to our national security. To keep our nation strong, we must pay the price of maintaining a strong educational system, a strong health care system, a strong economic and social fabric, a strong system of public safety and civil justice, and a strong moral foundation in addition to maintaining a strong national defense establishment.

An ideal National Service Program would include a multiplicity of service alternatives in addition to traditional military service, all of which directly or indirectly contribute to our nation’s security and well-being. Moreover, a program involving the majority of our citizens, all making an individual contribution to the nation in one form or another, would in and of itself add immeasurably to our strength as a nation.

Qualifying opportunities for national service abound. Without being exhaustive, such a list would begin with entities such as the Peace Corps, AmeriCorps and similar programs that currently fall under the “USA Freedom Corps” umbrella. Expanding these programs, in particular, to include the responsibilities for nation building programs would both relieve our military of this burdensome task (for which our forces are neither designed nor trained), and enhance the likelihood of their success by removing from them the military cloak which can often be prejudicial.

Of course, the National Guard and Reserves would be part of the program. “First responders” including firefighters and police would be included. Homeland Security requirements offer multiple alternatives, perhaps including something like the former “civil defense” roles across the nation. It could include K-12 teaching, particularly in inner city schools, as well as Head Start programs. Economic development programs in inner cities and economically disadvantaged areas might be included, along with a host of existing social worker and criminal justice positions, particularly with respect to anti-gang activities. Many health care positions might qualify such as the Public Health Service, inner city medical clinics, and, on a broader scale, nursing, which is experiencing a critical nationwide shortage. And there are certainly many opportunities for national service in the areas of environmental protection and conservation.

A number of major issues arise when considering all of the implications of a mandatory or “Universal” National Service program. Compulsory service of any kind can be expected to unleash a floodgate of resistance based on many different arguments, including the infringement of our individual freedom. The single overriding obstacle to universal national service, however, would most likely be affordability. Mandating participation in a federal national service program by, for instance, the entire population of 18-year-olds (perhaps 2 million yearly) would carry with it an enormous cost.

A Realistic Approach

From a practical perspective, a realistic approach would be to establish a voluntary national service program possessing both carrots and sticks. Such a program, backed by moral suasion and an altered national mindset, would endeavor to create an expectation that some form of national service should be the norm for all Americans. Its completion would mark a significant “rite of passage” into responsible citizenry. Many high schools and universities today already impose requirements for public service, some mandatory, others informal “expectations,” that can serve as models.

On the “carrot” side, selected government benefits (e.g., tax advantages, educational benefits, employment preferences, government-backed loans, contract hiring requirements, etc.) might be conditioned on the attainment of specific service goals, although care must be taken not to create a program which the wealthy can simply bypass because they do not need these benefits. On the “stick” side, voluntary participation in the program before a draft is mandated by law should be the only way (other than physical or hardship disqualification) to be excused from military service should the draft ever become a necessary reality. Perhaps the greatest “stick”, however, would ultimately be a kind of stigma that would accompany a failure to serve in the eyes of fellow Americans who did their share!

The long term objective of a National Service Program would simply be that all young Americans would be expected to participate in, and complete, a qualifying service alternative between the ages of 18 and 26. A range of ages would allow those who choose an alternative requiring higher education to be able to complete their education prior to entering into their service period (on the order of two years full-time equivalent). Some, of course, mught find their niche in life and make their chosen service their career. All would personally benefit from the experience in significant ways, as any veteran can attest.

The military would likely be an indirect beneficiary of a broad-based voluntary National Service Program. With a societal expectation that all young Americans should fulfill some form of service to the nation, many who are not currently in the targeted recruiting demographics could well consider military service. This, in itself, could relieve the pressures that might otherwise eventually require a draft.

Tom Brokaw told this year’s Stanford graduating class, and repeated in a speech at West Point in September, that with regard to the current epic struggle, “we are all in the Army now.” The unfortunate reality is that this nation today falls far short of that noble ideal. A robust program of voluntary National Service could go a long way toward closing that gap.

The “National Service Award”

The keystone of this proposed program is the establishment of a “National Service Award” (Presidential or Congressional) that all who fulfill an approved set of criteria would receive as formal recognition of their service. The idea would be to position the National Service Award as a major rite-of-passage, and give it sufficient recognition that employers would take note when considering job-seekers, colleges and universities could give admission preference to recipients and, perhaps most important, no political candidate could afford to be without it.

Cost

While a voluntary National Service Program would cost significantly less than a mandatory one, elevating its importance and creating a national expectation of participation should generate a broad base of participation that will certainly require major funding to support it. How would it be funded?

The best answer to this question is to point out that today the nation is spending under 4% of the gross domestic product on defense. Compare this to the time of the first Gulf War when defense spending was closer to 8% of the GDP. And then compare the threat we now face to the threats of earlier days. A national service program that consumed even 2% of the GDP would produce an enormous return on investment in terms of increased national strength, and even more in terms of our national soul!

A Time for Action

America is already entering into the preliminary stages of yet another presidential campaign and election process. Candidates will be vying for contributions, support and votes by suggesting generous programs that will benefit one or more segments of the population. Based on past experience, however, little, if anything, will be asked of the electorate. Even in the face of the long war against radical terrorist organizations, arguably the greatest real threat to the American way of life this nation has yet encountered, little has been asked in the way of sacrifice from the American people. What better time for our leaders to begin a national dialogue on the responsibilities and obligations of citizenship in general and the merits of a National Service program in particular?

Today it is Staff Sergeants and Petty Officers at downtown recruiting stations all across America who are quietly asking a select, non-representative, few to serve. It is time for their Commander-in-Chief and leader of this generation to call on ALL of the nation’s youth to serve in whatever capacity they choose….but to serve their country! Leadership from the bully pulpit of the Oval Office is essential to bring about the required cultural shift of the American people.

It is time for the members of Congress to live up to their constitutional charge of raising Armies by joining in a call for service by all Americans through passage of a National Service Act, and for those same leaders to lead by example and encourage their own sons and daughters to serve!

It is time for college and university presidents to tell their students and their graduates that they are expected to serve! And it is time for those same academic leaders to invite ROTC units back on their campuses and encourage their students to serve in a leadership capacity, having learned skills that will serve them and the nation well, in or out of the military (as corporate recruiters have long recognized).

It is time for leaders at every level and in every segment of American life to get involved in this vital issue. Civic organizations and service clubs can make it part of their agenda. School teachers and college professors can incorporate it within their curricula or extra-curricular activities. Religious leaders can add the element of moral suasion within their congregations. Candidates at local, state and national levels (and from all parties) can take up the cause and include it in their debates.

A distinguished bipartisan National Service Commission should be established to develop the overall program, including an accreditation process and structure to qualify various service alternatives, and to make recommendations for its long term sustainment. One alternative might be to give this responsibility to the existing, but underutilized, Selective Service System, with the title Director of Selective Service supplanted by Director of National Service. Wherever the responsibility is placed, it might well warrant a cabinet-level rank.

The Leadership Challenge

Radical fundamentalist organizations and their tactics of terror pose a very real “clear and present danger” to America and to our way of life. Today, and even beyond the current war, the preservation of our freedom can best be served when all Americans share the burden and make their individual and personal contributions to the continuance of this great nation. A broad-based voluntary National Service program, under the direction of a chartered National Service Commission and backed up by a meaningful Presidential or Congressional National Service Award, is a proper means to that end.

The members of the current generation are poised to take their place in history. They are already demonstrating their capacity to become another “greatest” generation of Americans. They are waiting to be called upon to serve! The question remains, will our leaders rise to the challenge and ask them to serve?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ABOUT THE CRITICAL ISSUES ROUNDTABLE

The “Critical Issues Roundtable” is an informal non-partisan group of retired senior military leaders in the greater Washington DC area who meet regularly to discuss contemporary issues of national importance and, where appropriate, offer ideas and public-policy recommendations in the form of articles, white papers or direct communications with target audiences. The current membership includes: