Quote:
Originally Posted by EternalEnigma21
Its a bad idea because its a waste of money. No one truly benefits. Its like the 2 and 3 year army terms. The biggest expense the army takes on with recruits is advertising/recruiting and training. This includes the mont. GI bill. Why spend that much $ on someone and have them leave before they can be of service to you.
I can't imagine dedicating resources to 3 months of training. What do you really gain? I guess that would be the new focus of recruiting. "Hey you've already done three months, why not stay...". Not to mention they would have their undivided attention for those 3 months.
But the first 18yr old that dies in an accident or from heat exhaustion that didn't want to be a part of it would result in a huge media circus and no doubt the aclu would have a new purpose (other than defending perverts)
|
If it's mandatory you wouldn't be advertising or recruiting. The GI Bill requires a $1200 contribution on the individual's part and served for at least 3 years active duty (at least it did in 1995).
Also, a conscientous objector most probably would be able to fulfill his commitment doing some other form of civil service, as is the case in other countries.
I won't argue that obviously there will need to be funding for this program, though. Just maybe not as much as one might think. A lot of details need to be ironned out but who knows. I can see a sort of hybrid JobCorp-National Defense being presented.