ADVERTISEMENT

In Trump’s orbit, some muse about mandatory military service

cigaretteman

HB King
May 29, 2001
78,452
60,549
113
Kyra Rousseau remembers feeling trapped in her high school media center last fall when a phalanx of military personnel and faculty members shut the doors behind her and about 100 classmates before gathering everyone’s phone.

Sign up for Fact Checker, our weekly review of what's true, false or in-between in politics.

Rousseau, 18, was a senior here at Liberty-Eylau High School. The service members were recruiters. She recalled asking to leave but being told to sit down — that her graduation hinged on completion of a military aptitude test.

“They tricked us,” Rousseau said. “They said ‘ASVAB,’ but they didn’t say what the ASVAB was.”
It stands for the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery, a standardized test developed by the Defense Department decades ago to help the military funnel recruits into occupations that match their skills and intellect. And if Donald Trump’s last defense secretary could have his way, all public high school students would be required to take it.



Christopher Miller, who led the Pentagon during the chaotic closure of Trump’s tenure in Washington, detailed his vision for the ASVAB and a range of other changes as part of Project 2025, the conservative Heritage Foundation’s government-wide game plan should the presumptive Republican nominee return to the White House. Miller is among a cluster of influential former administration officials and GOP lawmakers who have mused aloud about a national service mandate and other measures to remedy what they see as a “crisis” facing the all-volunteer military.
icon-election.png

Follow Election 2024
Trump has signaled that Miller, if there is a second term, might reprise his role as defense secretary, a powerful Cabinet post with sway over Pentagon policy. And though the former president has not publicly endorsed this Heritage strategy document, he did embrace many of the organization’s proposals at the outset of his first term.


In an interview, Miller said a national service requirement should be “strongly considered.” He described the concept as a common “rite of passage,” one that would create a sense of “shared sacrifice” among America’s youth.



“It reinforces the bonds of civility,” Miller said. “… Why wouldn’t we give that a try?”
Under his plan, he said, the ASVAB would be used to identify potential military “weaknesses” and help plug knowledge gaps as U.S. defense leaders size up competitors like China, and devise plans for possible conflicts with a range of foreign adversaries.
“If we’re going to prepare for a great-power competition,” Miller said, “it’s helpful to have a baseline understanding of the pool of potential military service members and their specific aptitudes prior.”
His contribution to Project 2025 also advocates granting military recruiters greater access to secondary schools, and he’s proposed halting use of the Defense Department’s electronic medical records platform, which he says leads to “unnecessary delays” and “unwarranted rejections” for some people with disabilities or other conditions who otherwise want to serve.



Trump’s own relationship with the military is complicated. As a teenager, he attended a military academy but later sought deferments to avoid service during the Vietnam War. As president, he embraced the role of commander in chief but routinely clashed with the Pentagon as its leaders balked at many of his impulses and recoiled when claims surfaced that he’d disparaged those killed in combat.
Trump’s campaign declined to address whether the former president supports mandatory military service and sought to tamp down speculation about his agenda. In a statement, top advisers cautioned that unless announced by the former president or “an authorized member” of his reelection team, no conjecture about future staffing or policy “should be deemed official.”


Collectively, the military services fell short of the Pentagon’s recruiting goal by about 41,000 last year, officials told lawmakers in December. Only the Marines and the Space Force met their objectives.



In explaining its shortfall, the Army, the largest of the services, points to internal data indicating that most of America’s youth — 71 percent — do not qualify for military service for reasons that include obesity, drug use and aptitude.
Only 1 percent of the U.S. population serves in the armed forces, Army data shows.
The United States halted conscription in 1973, two years before the Vietnam War ended, and since then the idea of mandatory military service has remained politically unpopular. But some in the GOP appear willing to make a case for change.
Sen. J.D. Vance (R-Ohio), a potential Trump running mate, said in an interview that he sees a clear need for measures to boost participation. “I like the idea of national service. And I’m not talking about in wartime,” he said, calling for more Americans to put “some skin in the game.”

 
  • Wow
Reactions: Ree4
Great another sacrifice that the baby boomers didn't make but they can use their power to force upon younger people.

If the boomers want young people to be forced into national service than I say they need to be forced to hand over 5% of their wealth so they can at least share in that sacrifice since we know they won't be doing the actual service.
 
Great another sacrifice that the baby boomers didn't make but they can use their power to force upon younger people.

If the boomers want young people to be forced into national service than I say they need to be forced to hand over 5% of their wealth so they can at least share in that sacrifice since we know they won't be doing the actual service.
Newsflash: Most Boomer men came up when the draft was still in effect. Most of the casualties in the Vietnam War were Boomers.
Your post is exceptionally stupid.
 
Newsflash: Most Boomer men came up when the draft was still in effect. Most of the casualties in the Vietnam War were Boomers.
Your post is exceptionally stupid.

Maybe the earliest baby boomers.

Regardless I'm willing to give those who served in the military an exemption from that. But the rest of the people who didn't serve if they want others to sacrifice they need to pony up some money a significant portion of their wealth so they can share in that.
 
Maybe the earliest baby boomers.

Regardless I'm willing to give those who served in the military an exemption from that. But the rest of the people who didn't serve if they want others to sacrifice they need to pony up some money a significant portion of their wealth so they can share in that.
Oh, and the Peace Corps founded by JFK
- and hugely successful - was majorly staffed by Boomers.
Talking about forcing Bsby Boomers to give up money if they want young people to serve in some capacity is absolutely ridiculous and stupid.
 
Oh, and the Peace Corps founded by JFK
- and hugely successful - was majorly staffed by Boomers.
Talking about forcing Bsby Boomers to give up money if they want young people to serve in some capacity is absolutely ridiculous and stupid.

They want to ***FORCE*** them to serve in that capacity. And I'm guessing it turns out that only the boys have to serve because in 2024 only boys are expected to sign up for selective service.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tom Paris
Great another sacrifice that the baby boomers didn't make but they can use their power to force upon younger people.

If the boomers want young people to be forced into national service than I say they need to be forced to hand over 5% of their wealth so they can at least share in that sacrifice since we know they won't be doing the actual service.
Dude, the last generation of Americans to get drafted were Boomers.

I think your point is correct, however, that most people who have actually been through combat are more reluctant to send young people to war compared to those who haven’t.

I think if America once again relies on a draft America is screwed with this upcoming generation.
 
They want to ***FORCE*** them to serve in that capacity. And I'm guessing it turns out that only the boys have to serve because in 2024 only boys are expected to sign up for selective service.
And that is wrong and sexist as hell.
Let’s ALL hope that we never have to have a military draft again.
Some sort of civilian service to our country in the form of volunteering is not a bad thing and millions of Americans of ALL ages already do that willingly.
 
Oh, and the Peace Corps founded by JFK
- and hugely successful - was majorly staffed by Boomers.
Talking about forcing Bsby Boomers to give up money if they want young people to serve in some capacity is absolutely ridiculous and stupid.
Baby Boomers getting singled out to give up money is stupid, but wars are really expensive. Who’s going to pay for it? We can’t even afford the government we have now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: goldmom
They want to ***FORCE*** them to serve in that capacity. And I'm guessing it turns out that only the boys have to serve because in 2024 only boys are expected to sign up for selective service.
What about a biological woman who identifies as a man? Shouldn’t they be eligible?
 
Dude, the last generation of Americans to get drafted were Boomers.

I think your point is correct, however, that most people who have actually been through combat are more reluctant to send young people to war compared to those who haven’t.

I think if America once again relies on a draft America is screwed with this upcoming generation.
Well the over abundance of WWII guys wearing a bunch of stuff on their uniforms and hardware on their shoulders were strutting around the Pentagon refusing to stop playing Army and thought it was cool to send other people’s 17-18 year olds into a jungle back in the 60’s.
 
Dude, the last generation of Americans to get drafted were Boomers.

I think your point is correct, however, that most people who have actually been through combat are more reluctant to send young people to war compared to those who haven’t.

I think if America once again relies on a draft America is screwed with this upcoming generation.

The US Gravy’s Meal Team Six will always kick ass!

 
And that is wrong and sexist as hell.
Let’s ALL hope that we never have to have a military draft again.
Some sort of civilian service to our country in the form of volunteering is not a bad thing and millions of Americans of ALL ages already do that willingly.
Call me old fashioned, but I don’t want women to be forced into military service. They can volunteer, absolutely, but I will never support conscription of women. Ever.
 
Well the over abundance of WWII guys wearing a bunch of stuff on their uniforms and hardware on their shoulders were strutting around the Pentagon refusing to stop playing Army and thought it was cool to send other people’s 17-18 year olds into a jungle back in the 60’s.
Yeah, I think that attitude has shifted over time.
 
If we're going to do this, which I don't think we should it should be both men and women. Trans, cis, or whatever of the 57 or whatever different genders they identify as.
I can already see the discriminatory lawsuits now should the military conscript based on biological sex. As crazy as it is, there is probably no feasible way to do this based on sex. It would have to be based entirely on every able-bodied person with no disqualifying mental conditions of a certain age who would be eligible.

The whole pronoun/gender-identification thing is just nucking futs.
 
Call me old fashioned, but I don’t want women to be forced into military service. They can volunteer, absolutely, but I will never support conscription of women. Ever.
Women are now on front line duty and operating our most important weaponry. Women are demanding complete equality.
As a Mother of a Son and a Daughter would I be more grief stricken if my Daughter was killed in combat than my Son?
Of course not.
Both should have had to register at 18.
 
Women are now on front line duty and operating our most important weaponry. Women are demanding complete equality.
As a Mother of a Son and a Daughter would I be more grief stricken if my Daughter was killed in combat than my Son?
Of course not.
Both should have had to register at 18.
I know what you’re saying. I just don’t believe women should be conscripted. It’s a personal opinion I’m not going to push. I respect your position and won’t challenge it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: goldmom
And that is wrong and sexist as hell.
Let’s ALL hope that we never have to have a military draft again.
Some sort of civilian service to our country in the form of volunteering is not a bad thing and millions of Americans of ALL ages already do that willingly.
I have said this for years…if you choose to drop out of high school you should be required to do some national civilian service, helping out in communities…maybe after weather disasters…until age 19 or 20. Just an opinion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: EagleHawk
And if Donald Trump’s last defense secretary could have his way, all public high school students would be required to take it.

I’m in favor of this just to have the same yardstick applied to all students across all districts and see how they fare.

Conscription is antithetical to liberty.

I think it would make the military more expensive and less effective.
 
Women are now on front line duty and operating our most important weaponry. Women are demanding complete equality.
As a Mother of a Son and a Daughter would I be more grief stricken if my Daughter was killed in combat than my Son?
Of course not.
Both should have had to register at 18.
It’s better than it has been but I am around enough women of a wide variety of ages and almost none are demanding complete equality. A lot of this is around the rules of dating, however. 😀
 
Isn't that the policy in Israel?

It is. . .

I'm not against conscription if there is a legitimate threat to the nation from a foreign military. But we don't have that.

If we're going to have conscription than we need to make sure everybody is making a sacrifice not just some group of kids who most likely havn't even had the chance to vote for the leaders who want to force them into service.

So if that's what we're going to do fine. The young people can go do their service and the rest of the people can surrender up 5% of our wealth and increase our taxes by 25% over what they are now. Package deal. . . if you want to force someone else to sacrifice than YOU sacrifice.

Because while some of the people voting for this may have indeed served in the military at some point, reality is most have not. They are just voting to make someone else sacrifice while they remain comfortable.
 
Last edited:
Newsflash: Most Boomer men came up when the draft was still in effect. Most of the casualties in the Vietnam War were Boomers.
Your post is exceptionally stupid.

The draft isn't mandatory service, it's selective service.



And to the OP, f*** no we shouldn't have either unless we are in a full mobilization time of war. We aren't, so f*** that
 
It is. . . I believe the only nations that do conscription right now are primarily nations that are under threat of a war or in a war. Israel, South Korea, Taiwan. . .

That's the other thing for me, who in 2024 uses conscription but isn't in a war or have a threatening neighbor?
I actually don't have a huge problem with the idea of mandatory service of some type. It doesn't even have to be military. With respect to the draft, we have a former and possibly future President who shows contempt for and referred to the military as suckers and losers. Maybe he wouldn't have that perspective if his own kids had served.
 
I actually don't have a huge problem with the idea of mandatory service of some type. It doesn't even have to be military. With respect to the draft, we have a former and possibly future President who shows contempt for and referred to the military as suckers and losers. Maybe he wouldn't have that perspective if his own kids had served.

My big issue is there are a lot of people who are going to be voting for and making a decision on this that have never served and won't be affected by that decision if we just leave to forcing young people to serve.

So if we are going to do that I think everyone should make some sacrifice.

I don't have a problem with the concept, I just want to make sure that everyone involved is making some sacrifice and not just handing out some dictate on high to a bunch of kids who never got to even vote on it. Now if you are willing to make that sacrifice as well than ok lets do it. But I'm guessing that if everyone who was too old to serve had to surrender 5% of their wealth and take a 25% permanent increase in their taxes a lot of people would vote very different. And this is a per person rate so a married couple that didn't serve has to surrender 10% of their combined wealth.

I'm willing even to drop the giving up the wealth part if that particular person served and received an honorable discharge. Although that only applies to you, it doesn't cover your spouse. If one served and the other different than you still have to hand over 5% of your wealth and take a 25% increase on your taxes. These tax increases will not apply to people once they have served.
 
In explaining its shortfall, the Army, the largest of the services, points to internal data indicating that most of America’s youth — 71 percent — do not qualify for military service for reasons that include obesity, drug use and aptitude.

This always blows me away....
I want everyone coming out of Highschool to take the ASVAB just to see how much of that 71% is in the aptitude slice.
The ASVAB isn't challenging. It's not the SAT.
 
I'm having a problem understanding what you are trying to say. I got drafted in 1970 and had to serve 2 years.
Well it’s two-fold: First there is a classification system; and second there is a required lottery. Participation is only compulsory for those selected.

The draft is also only available in cases of specified emergency.

Mandatory service like in Korea, requires 18+ months from men or they risk prison or loss of citizenship. Those unfit for military service must do public service. The only way to avoid the time commitment is to achieve an enumerated achievement in the national interest.
 
Last edited:
Trump and mandatory military service is an oxymoron! When young men in the 60's were getting drafted in large numbers, myself included, Trump was successfully dodging the draft. Remember his phony bone spurs caper? Any Vietnam era vet who would vote for this guy should have their head examined!
 
In explaining its shortfall, the Army, the largest of the services, points to internal data indicating that most of America’s youth — 71 percent — do not qualify for military service for reasons that include obesity, drug use and aptitude.

This always blows me away....
Medication taken in childhood for ADD/ADHD is
A disqualifier. Probably half the boys in schools today are on it.
In WWII the number of conscripts who failed their physicals due to malnutrition was shocking and led to the original “Food Pyramid” issued by the Department of Agriculture.
Many had mouthfuls of rotten teeth and various ailments and others got their first serving of three meals a day.
 
While the irony is a little rich given the proponent, in all honesty, it could do a lot of good. We'd never really use it (because after all, who fights ground wars with actual troops any more?), and it would give a far-too-large portion of the population some perspective on what matters, when it matters, and what hardship is.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT