The price we pay

Last week, Gulf War veteran David Miyasato filed a federal lawsuit against the Army claiming that its mobilization order that required him to report for duty was illegal. After all, Miyasato was discharged in 1996 after completing his eight-year stint.\nThe U.S. military must be desperate and really hurting for people. They are ordering up veterans who have already been discharged to serve again. Maybe it is time for -- dare I say it -- required service.\nIn recent months, many people have been talking about the possibility of a renewed military draft. And with President Bush's re-election, many think it is certainly a possibility -- even though Bush has said that he will not revive it.\nBut what's wrong with requiring something from our citizens? Maybe we shouldn't require military service, but everyone should be required to serve in some way. We live in a great country. We should pay for it.\nNow, before every college student goes crazy with the idea of required service, let me make myself clear. I am not talking about requiring all citizens to suit up for the armed forces. I don't think everyone is fit for military service (read: I am not fit for military service -- I'm a big wimp). Besides, if this country's security is to remain strong, we must have people fighting who want to be there. \nWhat I am proposing is that everyone be required for some sort of service -- military or civil. That, of course, could include working for the armed services. It also could include working for programs like AmeriCorps that provide community service to other Americans in need. We could even have qualified college graduates spend time teaching in inner-city or rural schools that are in desperate need of successful young role models. \nThe list could go on and on and could include a large variety of different types of civilian jobs. In my proposed model, people could even work as office staff for a government agency to fulfill their obligation.\nOne of the best parts: People could get to choose what they want to do. Moreover, the government could provide education and training for the job one chooses. This would provide great advantages to citizens who later want to get jobs in similar fields in the private sector.\nConscription for all citizens is not a new idea. Some countries currently expect it. Israel, for instance, requires both men and women to be in the armed forces. Some countries, like Austria and Finland, allow civil service to substitute for military service.\nOf course, having everyone work for the government -- even if only for a couple years -- would increase its size. Some opponents might say that having such a large government will create bigger bureaucracies and somehow encroach on our individual rights. However, having all citizens directly involved in the government in some way better guarantees those rights. What better way to ensure we have a government by the people and for the people than to actually have people working for it?\nStill others will say that if we are required to perform any kind of service mandated by the government, we will no longer be free to choose our own actions. We are already required to pay taxes and follow laws. I understand the argument, but remember: Freedom isn't free. \nWe get a lot from our country, and those of us who are U.S. citizens are very fortunate. But we should give something back. President John F. Kennedy said during his inaugural speech in 1961, "And so, my fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you -- ask what you can do for your country."\nWe should all be asking ourselves the same question. After all, it's the price we pay for freedom.