Retired General Stanley McChrystal said something on Face the Nation last week which, perhaps, is worth thinking about.
Asked by Bob Schieffer whether we needed a military draft, McChrystal suggested that we did need all young people to do some sort of national service—not necessarily military.
One of his reasons—and this is what caught my attention—was “we’re also a nation which doesn’t get to know each other well. Someone from one part of an inner city never meets someone from an upper class neighborhood.”
It occurs to me in the context of the ongoing debate about gun violence, parenting, video games, media, etc. that he’s right. I can make a no-cost phone call to London with something I carry in my pocket, but I’m embarrassed to admit that I’d have to ask my wife what our neighbor’s phone number (or last name) is.
At age 60, looking back on when I was growing up, I participated in activities—as did most of my contemporaries—which made those introductions from neighborhood to neighborhood and socio-economic group to socio-economic group. It started in the Cub Scouts, continued in the Boy Scouts and, for me, went on to the Civil Air Patrol and then to college. My sisters were all Brownies and Girl Scouts and had much the same experience.
By the time I finished my freshman year at Southern Illinois University, I had indeed met folks from just about every kind of neighborhood (and some of those people are still friends today.) I didn’t need a class in diversity because I lived it, growing up.
You would think, given the fact that we all carry Star Trek-style personal communicators these days, which are all capable of talking to anyone, anywhere, anytime that we would communicate with each other.
McChrystal is right. We don’t.
When I was growing up, we lived in a subdivision. Everybody knew each other. The parents knew who their children were playing with. When somebody new moved into the neighborhood, there was an immediate procession of neighbors to the door of the new folks, introducing themselves.
My late father and my late favorite uncle were known family-wide for talking to anybody about anything almost any place. My uncle would drive the streets of New York with his windows down so he could start a conversation at red lights and in traffic jams.
Today, these conversations may be carried on by email and text message; but how many face-to-face interactions between people—neighbors even—are there as opposed to back in the 60s and 70s?
It’s a lot easier to do violence to people you don’t have any clue exist in the non-electronic world. A whack job who communicates with no one gets a gun and kills 20 first graders, and we blame the gun?
Here are some interesting statistics from the Boy Scouts of America:
The number of Scouts nationally was at its peak in the early 1970s, with about 6.5 million. The number of all Scouts as of the end of 2010 was down to about 2.7 million, according to the BSA website.
It’s probably fair to assume that the same sort of declines exist in other youth-oriented groups.
That means that not nearly as many young people are meeting each other in the kind of environment that fosters lifetime relationships between kids of all sorts. For whatever the reason, meeting all kinds of people is no longer cool these days.
Maybe some sort of mandatory national service—military or otherwise—is an, if not the, answer.
Today’s society is a wonderful place for people who don’t like people. You can communicate all you want without ever actually having to meet anyone. You can have virtual friends who may or may not actually exist.
Maybe the only way to get people to know other people in today’s society is through some sort of national service which, at least, would have the additional benefit of binding the people to the nation they live in, as McChrystal suggested.
I’m not wild about the idea of allowing the government to become an extended babysitter, but I sure can see the benefits of extending military or civilian service to everybody between the ages of 18 and 20.
At the very least, it might give people from red states and blue states something in common.
And if we’re about to have a “national conversation” about violence, this certainly deserves to be part of the debate.
Please share this post with your friends and comment below. If you haven’t already, take a moment to sign up for our free newsletter above and friend us on Twitter and Facebook to get real time updates.
Follow @WestJournalism
Loading ...
Obama and his minions have suggested this … McChrystal is “being a good soldier”. Never mind that what Obama has in mind is frighteningly reminiscent of the Hitler Youth … Something along the lines of his “civilian defense (of the regime, not doubt) force that’s just as powerful, just as well armed, and just as well funded as our military.”
He’s already working on it … Through DHS and “youth programs”
Not a good idea for two reasons: 1) mandatory 2) collectivism. I’m not much for numbers, not much for words, but going back in time to revisit “stupid” sounds like communism to me. Yogi Berra said it best, “In theory there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice there is.” Lotta wisdom there…Semper Fi
America is about choice…Under Obama and his Demonrats…mandatory would be a very bad idea…
N’est,pas?
My first thought when I saw the post of fb, was a resounding NO. Period. What the gubmint needs to do is get out of the way of youth organizations and let pursue their stated goals. This past Sunday at chapel services on base, I witnessed Boy Scouts attending services. It was reminiscent of my days as a Boy Scout. We simply don’t need MORE gubmint mandatory ANYTHING. Get gubmint out of our lives.
No it is not a good idea, The Obama admin. will reprogram the kids to fulfill their anti American agenda. Please keep this idea from spreading.
I would bet if they went back to the older Boy Scout and Girl Scout traditions, they would once again have higher numbers. Kids join these groups to do something different than every day life. Girl Scouting has changed so much to keep up with the world that it has lost the original purposes. My granddaughters wanted to go camping, go to camps, learn things like that. But now it is how to be a prim prissy up to date prima donna. They dropped out, they can learn all that at home or in church. Try going back to basics, it just might help.
Mandatory anything is a bad idea, if you are a law abiding citizen. Schools used to have service organizations, and participating in them looked good on College Admission forms, especially when applying for scholarships. Today’s young people are to self-involved to have any idea what’s going on outside their own little world. A little wake up call might be a good thing!
Disagree that this is McChrystal being a “good inline soldier”. and Obama was not the first to recommend it, either. I have said for years that a minimum two years, out of high school or college, either in the military, or the peace corps (yes, bring that back), or another form of civil service would do a myriad of positive things. Teach the value of hard work, instill discipline, the idea of actually working toward a common goal, self-reliance, and help get rid of that “entitlement” attitude. If you put a city kid in the Appalachians, for example, maybe some appreciation for ALL people in this country and their ways of life and beliefs would begin to bring this very divided nation back together.
This is horrifying. I remember when my brother had fallen deeply in love with Barry and asked me about this for my children. I didn’t know it was part of Barry’s agenda right away, but later found out..It’s also part of what Barry meant when he said that we need a ‘national defense corp’ as well-trained and funded as the military…it is akin to Hitler’s youth!!! HELLO!!!
If this were being proposed by someone who really wanted to strengthen our Republic, but it is not…we are living in tyrannical, one-party-rule and it’s merely a sign of that….Oh yeah, mandatory volunteerism—that sounds sensible.
Are you insane or just another Obamaton masquerading as a patriot?
I don’t normally answer stupid comments, but you, madam or sir, are a moron. First of all, this is most decidedly NOT part of Obama’s agenda. If you would bother to read the part of your computer that you don’t drool on, you would see that it was suggested by an American special forces operator who was forced out of the military by one Barack Obama. The whole world is NOT a conspiracy. And I don’t see it as voluntarism in the least. In fact, the biggest opponents to such a plan would undoubtedly be the public employee unions who are so in love with the President. I see it as paying your dues for the right to be a citizen of this nation. If you don’t want to serve in our all volunteer military than you ought to do something to earn your keep. Two years of service–civilian or military–is not an unreasonable requirement.
Hell, if that had happened to you, you might have gained a better grasp of history.
Hey, it’s fair… you’re in debt to the nation and you have to work off this debt… we can call it “indentured servitude” until we’ve determined you’ve worked off your debt.
That sounds familiar… OH YES we got rid of that as it was a form of slavery. Well that’s silly, we like slavery. Control over other people, forcing them to do our bidding, it’s for their own good that we control them… right?
The problem with indentured servitude was *(and is) that the master always decides that there’s just a bit more that needs to be repaid before you can have your freedom… but don’t rebel, you’re not a slave… you’ll be free, eventually. After 2 years, or 4, or 6… whatever this plan gets expanded to over time.
Oh, you think it won’t? What percentage of government plans get smaller, or even stay the same size over time? When has the government willingly given up power that it had?
I know society has been dumbed down over the years; but are we dumb enough for this to work?