Since 1974, America has depended on an all-volunteer military for our national defense. Overall, this force has performed magnificently, in many cases exceeding the expectations of the original architects and surprising many of the naysayers. Even in the face of 15 years of war (and counting), the all-volunteer force has proven to be sustainable at the present levels with relatively little adjustment to its selection criteria.
While this is good news, especially for those who abhor a draft, it has not been without unintended consequences.
Our nation today faces a growing military-civilian divide, both cultural and societal. Less than one-half of one percent of Americans currently serve in uniform, while the 99-plus percent realize the benefit while bearing none of the burden. Not only do most American families have no one in the military, most do not even know someone who is now serving. This is especially true within the higher economic strata, to include the majority of our nation's lawmakers.
As a result, most Americans know little or nothing about what life is like for our military families who serve and sacrifice on our behalf. This does not make for a healthy society.
One ray of hope to offset this divide has been a growing interest in national service in a civilian capacity as a way to get more Americans involved. Only about one in four young Americans can even meet the requirements for military service, which makes non-military service options even more important.
While there is much to be said for requiring all young people to serve a year or more in some capacity of national service, that is simply a non-starter in today's environment. It turns out, however, that a purely voluntary program is already enormously successful.
In fact, demand for very poorly paid national service positions, such as those supported by AmeriCorps, exceeds the availability of these positions many times over. There is an increasing thirst among our nation's 18- to 24-year-old population to get involved in something bigger than themselves, and, yes, altruistically to "make a difference" in this world.
National service in a civilian capacity still requires a degree of sacrifice on the part of its participants, including financial deprivation and what we might call the "opportunity cost" of a year or more of their lives. The benefits, however, far outweigh these costs, and that's one reason the demand is so high.
One need look no further than the "greatest generation" and what they subsequently achieved for themselves and for the nation as a direct result of their having served in World War II.
Of course, these veterans, as today's, were "battle hardened," which is not likely to be the case for those engaging in civilian national service.
The real benefit to those who served came in the form of maturity, self-discipline, management and leadership experience, and the camaraderie that derived from shared experience, especially with teammates of diverse backgrounds to which they might never have otherwise been exposed.
The thousands of businesses who have been hiring our current generation of veterans have quickly discovered it is not an act of charity, rather it's the smartest thing that they could be doing for their enterprises. The same can be said for those who hire young Americans coming out of a year or more of national service.
The benefits of national service are legion. What makes the case more compelling is that, by doing their share, these young men and women are actually helping to bridge the military-civilian divide and adding to the moral fiber of our communities and our nation.
We're stronger as a nation because so many of our young men and women selflessly serve, whether in uniform or in a civilian capacity. Both contribute to "providing for the common defense."
The recently released federal budget proposal, however, would wipe out this critical element of our national strength by zeroing out both AmeriCorps and the Corporation for National and Community Service, the little-known federal agency that runs national service programs, including AmeriCorps and Senior Corps.
This proposal ignores the enormous return on investment that these very small budget lines represent, especially in comparison to the defense budget, which these programs actually complement.
This would be a tragic outcome for both the nation and those individuals in national service.
There is nothing partisan about national service, which for over eight decades has enjoyed bipartisan support at all levels of government. The Kennedy-Hatch Serve America Act of 2009 came about following the 2008 election campaign during which both John McCain and Barack Obama gave their enthusiastic endorsement of national service.
The subsequent passage of that legislation significantly increased the number of AmeriCorps positions available for young Americans to serve their country. We must not lose this momentum.
The signatories to this piece have all proudly served our country in uniform. We strongly believe that a national civilian service program is a vital component of our strength as a nation. We urge the administration to rethink this small, but critical, budget item, and we urge our congressional representatives to ensure that both the AmeriCorps program and the Corporation for National and Community Service are fully funded.
Army Gen. William G. T. Tuttle (ret.)
Salisbury is chairman of the Critical Issues RoundTable, an informal non-partisan group of retired senior military leaders who meet regularly in Washington to discuss contemporary issues of national importance. The opinions expressed here do not necessarily reflect the views of Military Times or its staff.