In this time of political party bickering, distorted news, TV commercials, debates and a seemingly endless supply of polls conducted by everyone from college professors to pimply 13-year-olds with their own blogs, every issue - moral, economic, national defense and judicial to name a few - is up for debate and everyone is an expert on every topic and has a passionate opinion about it each subject. Each of these concepts or elements that make up our country, and the strong opinions many have regarding each, all lead to a fundamental desire that this writer believes almost everyone possesses; progression towards a better mental, physical, national and global state. In this sense; that is, strong opinions and ideas about what practices can lead us to that progression, the memory of a statement once made to the writer is brought to the foreground. “All our problems would be solved if every brat served.” This bold statement, spoken in slightly slurred words laced with Canadian whisky, was uttered by the writer's grandfather; a stern, conservative man who had served twenty-seven years in the military and had seen action in World War II, Korea, and Vietnam before being forced into retirement by officers who had grown tired of his short-tempered, drunken behavior. This strong statement has always attracted the writer's curiosity; many politicians, military officers and former hippies have spoken loudly on the topic of conscription, i.e. compulsory military service, but the question still remains as to which side is right in their statement; Is compulsory military service beneficial or harmful to our society? Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay 73 countries around the world currently practice some form of conscription; some impose mandatory military service terms while others require some form of civilian, rather than military, service. One of the first debates on the issue took place in Edwardian Britain at a time of great dismay; for all eyes were warily watching the Germans. Other countries, such as France, Russia, and Japan, had already enthusiastically implemented compulsory military service in an effort to quickly build a force worthy of combating the dark cloud of impending doom that was Germany in the early 1900s. The British people watched as these countries continued to build their respective forces and panic began to arise; whispers about the possibility of conscription became urgent cries; some argued for the need to rapidly build military strength by whatever means necessary, others argued that the government, with its consideration of conscription, was on the verge of implementing policies that went against the very fabric of what Britain was and would be . As tensions rise and fears become more rooted in reality, a bitter struggle ensues. In his article “The Case for Conscription,” author and historian Tom Stearn recalls and recounts the bitter legislative battle that took place and the questions that arose related to patriotism, defense, and masculinity. Aside from the seemingly sensible argument that since Germany used a policy of compulsory military service and consequently had a large army, it would be very appropriate for Britain to increase the size of its forces to avoid becoming a target. Much of the propaganda was also centered on the concepts ofpatriotism and masculinity. In his article, Stearn explores the work of George F Shee, an imperialist and author of 'The Briton's First Duty: The Case for Conscription'. Written in 1901, when rumors of compulsory service were just beginning to be heard across Britain after a series of humiliating military defeats, the book is in essence a strong message based on emotion rather than fact. She writes: “Compulsory service would also be a panacea, counteracting moral degeneration and physical deterioration and transforming hooligans into patriotic citizens” (Shee 4). Furthermore, Shee writes, “conscription would counteract an evil tendency towards softness, indiscipline, and unmanliness” (Shee 4). As Stearn recalls in his article, the efforts of Shee and many others would be futile as people ultimately rejected the idea of ​​compulsory service primarily because, as Stearn writes, “compulsory training was neither militarily necessary nor politically feasible ” (Stearn 3 ). However, propaganda has had at least some impact on many people's minds; after all, the dark cloud of doom still existed, and the idea of ​​a society of handsome, masculine warriors on guard ready to defend Britain from all its enemies was a comforting thought to many. That this thought was rooted in reality was insignificant; which is, of course, often the purpose of good propaganda. More recently, in 2002, university professor Bruce Chapman wrote an article for the research department of the Brookings Institution titled “A Bad Idea Whose Time Has Past: The Case Against Universal Service.” In the article, Chapman argues that compulsory service “has never been a good idea, and it gets worse with time. It fails militarily, morally, financially, and politically” (Chapman 2). Two of these ideas are of particular interest: moral and financial. Chapman says compulsory service with imposed terms of service actually costs the government more money than it's worth. “The average length of service required in countries that impose compulsory conscription is just over a year and a half. By the time these new recruits are trained in a particular specialty, it would be time for their mandated service to be finished” (Chapman 3). In this Chapman is suggesting that the thousands of dollars it costs the government to feed, house, clothe, and train the average recruit would ultimately be for nothing if after nine months of training the recruit had only nine months left in his enlistment and would be receiving a salary and educational benefits over the course of those nine months. In addition to these harsh financial realities, Chapman highlights the moral implications of compulsory service. “Service is not service to the extent that it is obligated” (Chapman 5). Chapman explores the idea that service to our country that is mandatory is not service based on submission and will ultimately pit the haves against the have-nots as happened during the draft decades ago; the upper class will go to college or abroad to avoid the service while the rest of the people will be left to shoulder the patriotic burden. In contrast, in his article "Service Should Be the Norm: Young Americans Need a 'Right' of Passage," author William Raspberry offers a different perspective; one that suggests that military service is not a rite of passage but a “right” of passage that must be earned by our youth. His arguments are not based on military or war strategy, but on transforming our youth into responsible and productive adults; and that progress to adulthood is a right to be earned through service. Raspberry says: “If young peopleare responsible for earning the right to adulthood, then adults are responsible for providing the opportunities for this to happen. We need to stop trivializing as we grow up” (Raspberry 3). Raspberry appears to be saying that all of us, including our youth, have inherited certain freedoms provided by our country and must somehow earn or repay what we have inherited through strong patriotism and service. While this seems like a conservative argument, it essentially amounts to the more liberal notion that those who have must give to those who have not; the Robin Hood theory. Isn't our entire culture based on the attainment of a right of some kind? Generally, you must work and pay Social Security for a certain number of years and be near death before you can take advantage of the benefits it offers. Isn't this what retirement is? Something that needs to be earned? Perhaps conservatives and liberals have more common ground than they realize. When it comes to the topic of conscription, both points of view offer an intriguing logic; Stearn's article addresses concerns about masculinity and lawlessness and a general sense of fear among people who fear being vulnerable amid growing enemies' military forces; Chapman's perspective asks the reader to evaluate the moral and financial implications of compulsory service, and Raspberry states that we must earn our place through service. Many ideas and considerations were brought to the table by the authors cited above, but none of the authors answered a very important question: do views on compulsory service change in wartime? Is it more acceptable to impose compulsory service if we are at war as was the case more than four decades ago? So is it understandable to put a young person in the line of fire? In the name of patriotism? I am not surprised to find that none of the authors with such strong opinions served in the military, so these questions cannot be answered because the answers to the questions are unimaginable to the ignorant. Let's assume for a moment that we have an 18 year old. He just graduated from high school; he was a stud, an athlete, he was somebody. I mean, it was someone at school. Now he's just another person; overwhelmed by life choices and looking for a direction of progression. His grandfather told him that the Army made him a man; maybe it will do the same for him. Furthermore, he will further demonstrate his masculinity by joining not the Army but the Marine Corps. All goes well for the young man who makes new companions, shoots a rifle for the first time, meets several exotic dancers at the urging of his companions and in the meantime also earns a little pocket money. It's all good really; that is, until the veil is pulled back and revealed. The young man who never fired a rifle is now in hell; or as others call it Fallujah. After days of thunder and lightning; or mortars and gunfire, he can't hear. This is not an exaggeration; cannot hear, mouths move but no words are audible; although fewer mouths are moving at this point because five of the seven men he attended boot camp with and eventually deployed with were now dead. One of them, Caro, burned alive in the seat next to the young man in the Humvee. From time to time the young man smelled burning flesh, real or imaginary, in the air and vomited violently. Lives are lost; some by his hand, others simply in his presence. Some lives are mourned in death, others are cursed and spat upon. The young man has lost himself; he has become what he despises. The rest of the war passes leaving him without memories; he is home now, the souls of his fallen comrades and the.