McChrystal went on to publish a Wall Street Journal op-ed on the same subject:
Here is a specific, realistic proposal that would create one million full-time civilian national-service positions for Americans ages 18-28 that would complement the active-duty military--and would change the current cultural expectation that service is only the duty of those in uniform. At age 18, every young man and woman would receive information on various options for national service. Along with the five branches of the military, graduates would learn about new civilian service branches organized around urgent issues like education, health care and poverty. The positions within these branches would be offered through AmeriCorps as well as through certified nonprofits. Service would last at least a year.
As a teen, I was compelled to complete 80 volunteer hours in order to graduate from the Catholic high school that I attended. I logged those hours at a sports camp put on by a wheelchair tennis organization, as well as at Special Camp for Special Kids, a San Juan Capistrano, California, charity that endeavors to give special needs kids the summer camp experience that would otherwise elude them (and to give their parents a brief, much needed break). Volunteering proved very rewarding, and probably wasn't something I would've done otherwise. Many (though not all) of my peers were ultimately enthusiastic about the forced volunteering, which advanced the religious, pedagogical, and college-resume-burnishing missions of our high school. Were I in charge there, I would certainly retain the "service hours" requirement.
My younger sister followed in my footsteps as a volunteer at Special Camp, attended college, joined the administrative ranks of that organization, and then helped to run Camp Painted Turtle, a Paul Newman charity equipped to give a summer camp experience to kids with a staggering variety of severe medical problems. She's since left that wonderful organization on good terms. (I'm heartbroken to report that this summer's session has been cancelled due to damages sustained in a wildfire -- the nonprofit is scrambling to raise money in hopes of reopening.)
All over America, there are private schools, religious organizations, civic groups, non-profits, and businesses that either require or enable volunteerism. Many of their programs are worth celebrating and emulating. So why not mandate that every American do national service for one or two years at age 18 or 22?
There are a number of factors that should give us pause:
1) The educational and career demands of modern society are already causing people to delay marriage and child-bearing. I wouldn't want to coerce anyone to wed and procreate early. But building another one or two year lag into "coming-of-age" could have unintended consequences.
2) A one-size-fits-all mandate inevitably does serious harm to some people in a society as diverse as ours. Working for Uncle Sam might not cost the average person much at age 18 or 22. But think of how important that precious year of youth is to some people -- for example, the thousands of Americans who make their careers in professional athletics, whether the NBA or Olympic badminton. They've got a limited number of years to pursue their passion. If you're LeBron James, a year of service when you're age 40 makes a lot more sense! If you're a young Mormon couple with religious obligations to your community and a desire to have a really big family, an extra volunteering burden in your early 20s matters a lot. Maybe it means you have to have one less kid. The Washington, D.C., wonks who write the laws won't think of these minorities.
3) Lots of people fulfill obligations beyond themselves that aren't "public service" as we generally understand it: helping to support their single mother and younger siblings; taking care of a sick parent or grandparent; working so a significant other can afford law or medical school; babysitting for a neighbor while she finishes her master's degree on Wednesday nights; helping a talented but disorganized friend complete her application for art school. Is it proper to compel those people to reallocate their time, so that they're serving "the public" rather than their family, friends or neighbors? Of course, any opt-out clause for people in the circumstances I've described would make national service so easy to avoid that it wouldn't be universal. People "give" in lots of different ways. Why should one of them be elevated and made compulsory?
4) After college, I pursued a different path than my sister: I took a job as the beat reporter in Rancho Cucamonga, California. The stories I wrote for a community newspaper were often the only record of important civic happenings in a city of 100,000 people -- a huge responsibility, especially for a 22-year-old, and one that caused me to happily work extremely long hours for very modest pay. Given my skills at the time, as well as my notion of the good, there was no place in America where I would've been of greater value to my fellow citizens than the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin. That job also helped me build skills I've made use of ever since in my career. As a personal matter, delaying the start of my journalism career would've had a significant negative impact on my life (perhaps I'd feel differently if my path to magazine journalism was the Harvard-or-Yale-undergrad-to-internship route; it wasn't). As a matter of principle, I resist the notion that my job had no public service component. Would "professional reporter" ever count as national service? On what basis would we decide? If some jobs count, then the state must bless some and diminish others. I certainly question whether various jobs advance the public interest in any way, but I don't think my judgment or the polity's should be decisive.
5) Based on seeing the work that my sister and her colleagues did at Special Camp and Camp Painted Turtle, I submit to you that they were insanely undervalued in our socio-economic system. It frustrates me every time people speak about workers at nonprofits as if toiling for a good cause should entail everyone cheerfully forgoing salaries commensurate with their skills. (A few weeks ago, I was reading a local newspaper that had a gift guide for college graduates. Rather than generic gifts, it suggested using a grad's intended career path for inspiration. Its gift idea for folks going into the non-profit sector: donate to their favorite charity in their name. Its gift idea for folks going into finance: give them money to invest. Why is working to help others taken as a signal that you don't value financial remuneration?) I fear that universal service would further entrench the notion that there are some things Americans do professionally, as "serious" careers -- lawyer, accountant, college professor -- and other things, like nonprofit work, that many people do free for a couple years, before moving on to something "real," (even as a small minority of wrongly lower status people keep serving others for a living). I'll believe that America values serving others when the people doing it are respected and paid as if they're valuable, not when older Americans vote en masse to force younger Americans to serve, doing various jobs deemed insufficiently important to pay a skilled employee.
6) Along the same lines, it's crazy that we expect soldiers to "serve" so much -- the gulf between their sacrifice and their compensation is a scandal, as is their suicide rate. I understand that military personnel sign up partly or even mostly for love of country. That doesn't mean they shouldn't get paid based on the costs they're bearing and the value they're adding as they defend us and complete missions. Yes, a draft would raise the cost of the military to all Americans, and perhaps make us more careful about how we use the military. But so would paying our volunteer force better. It's important that we retain the service component of soldiering -- I'm uneasy about private military contractors for that reason -- but part of the problem is that we overemphasize "service" in a way that causes us to exploit their patriotic impulses.
7) Proponents of national service worry that there's nothing binding all Americans together anymore. Actually, our ties are as strong as they've ever been: thanks to telecommunications advances, easy travel, and the enduring mobility of the American people, we live in a country with far more shared experiences than the America of 1776, 1876, or 1976, when a Californian would have little idea of what South Carolinians were seeing, arguing about, or doing every day. What's actually atrophying is local ties. As Alan Jacobs writes, "A great deal of suffering in America today is caused by the evacuation of intermediary structures: the church, the family, voluntary organizations. These intermediary structures are in desperate need of renewal and that can only happen if there is a systematic shift of power, wealth, and influence from state and national governments to local units." I am loath to empower a national service bureaucracy that standardizes, regulates and eventually displaces the diverse volunteerism already taking place all over America. Volunteer organizations are one of the few parts of American life that remain decentralized, with strong roots at the community level, and that is a good thing. Do we really want to slowly give it over to national administrators in Washington, D.C.?
8) Conceptually, why should the state put its thumb on the scale in favor of young people serving "the United States," as opposed to individuals in their lives who need help, or people in their cities, or the global structure of their religious congregation? Is it better to serve the United States than to travel abroad to build houses for poor Mexicans, or to provide education and birth control to Rwandan women, or to be Mormon missionaries to French people? Different individuals ought to be able to make different value judgments about these sorts of questions.
9) If the state is going to coerce young adults to spend a year of their lives doing something -- and I don't think it should -- wouldn't the nation and the world benefit more from making them spend a year living abroad somewhere? I think so.
10) Of course, a cosmopolitan, coastal elite like myself would think that a year abroad is more valuable for young people than a year of service. And guess what? While my particular brand of policy preferences might not be captured in national service, make no mistake that the rules will be co-opted by ruling class elites to serve their ends. Everyone will be forced to serve, but some will serve in ways that reward them personally more than others. The system will be gamed by the wealthy, the well-connected, the folks with the social capital to figure out how things work -- and national service will be set up in a way that serves their ends and reflects their values and preferences.
11) Think of your age. Now imagine if Congress was considering mandatory national service for all Americans a year older than you are now. Think of all the reasons you'd think that was a bad idea.
12) Compulsory national service would seem to violate the 13th Amendment: "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction." FYI, the definition of servitude: "a condition in which one lacks liberty especially to determine one's course of action or way of life."
13) There are some things, like defending the nation and collecting taxes, that government must do. If barbarians march up to the gates with knives drawn, someone must go out and defend the city. And their weapons cost money. Military drafts for wars of self-defense and taxes are necessary evils -- necessary to avoid free-riders, and evil because they entail that the state use force to compel some human beings to do things that they really do not, in fact, want to do. Unlike maintaining a military, maintaining a force of 18-year-olds doing national service is not a necessity. Indeed, we've managed to be one of the wealthiest, most powerful, most free nations in history without it. If something is unnecessary, it's arguably immoral to force adults to spend months of their lives doing it (even if a good many of them would thank you afterward).
Those are many, though not all, of the reasons that I would oppose any vote to implement universal national service. But there is one other line in McChrystal's WSJ op-ed that's worthy of note:
More than most Americans realize, the demand to serve already exists. In 2011, there were nearly 600,000 applications to AmeriCorps--a program with only 80,000 positions, only half of which are full time. The Peace Corps received 150,000 requests for applications but has funding for only 4,000 new positions each year. This gap represents democratic energy wasted and a generation of patriotism needlessly squandered.
Presuming that they're well run programs, I'd happily support expanding AmeriCorps and The Peace Corps so that more people who want to serve in that manner are afforded the opportunity. Enabling Americans to work for the greater good as they see it -- whether that means peace corps or starting a business or joining the military or working for a big corporation -- is a true strength of our country. Compelling everyone to follow a single path would reduce the value we create as a nation, devalue diversity, and transgress against the right to liberty.