Abstract

Since the end of the Vietnam war, America has opted for a professional model of military service. This model has come with several major benefits as well as drawbacks. In recent years, calls for a return to some form of mandatory national service have found increased attention within public discourse. While many arguments in favor of such a model find their justification by way of prudence, in this article, I make this argument by way of a different set of justifications. Rather than arguing for mandatory military service based on typical prudential considerations concerning misuse, adventurism, or civilian incompetence, I argue instead from reasons of fairness and legitimacy. In particular, my claim is that at least since 9/11, the lion’s share of warfighting responsibilities, and importantly, the accruing of moral residue or so-called “dirty hands” endemic to warfighting have disproportionately and unfairly been shouldered by an increasingly thin sliver of American society. This phenomenon, since the end of Vietnam and particularly over the past two decades, is becoming increasingly unfair towards soldiers and is weakening the legitimacy of continued US warfighting efforts. Accordingly, these considerations give us motivation for a return to a mandatory national service model in some form.