Ivey is vice president of legislative affairs and national security for Freedom Technologies, Inc. and a Navy veteran. Nicholson is a government consultant, adjunct professor at Georgetown University Law Center and an Army veteran.
Vice President Harris has been widely criticized for her assessment that “our democracy” presented one of the biggest threats to national security. Perhaps the vice president was more correct than the critics are giving her credit for, but the threat she identified (state laws with the proffered goal of ballot integrity) does nothing to address another insidious harm to democracy demonstrated over the last 20 years.
This past Sept. 11 marked the 20th anniversary of the terrorist attacks on U.S. soil that resulted in almost 3,000 deaths and injuries to several thousand more. Our response to those attacks ushered in the longest uninterrupted period of combat operations in the nation’s history. Yet, although the 9/11 attacks affronted all Americans, only a small percentage of them have sought military service since that tragic day. But beyond the aggressive exercise of presidential war powers across at least four administrations and decades of congressional acquiescence, the people of the United States must also bear some responsibility for their inaction.
The impact of extended deployments and combat operations on military personnel and their families is well documented. Indeed, the current and previous administrations have taken several important steps to support military veterans and their families. Those measures, however, neither absolve the American public from its obligation to participate in a discourse on the appropriate use of military force, nor do they address the increasing attenuation between the American people and the wars fought on their behalf.
In a Nov. 10, 2021, Wall Street Journal opinion piece, H.R. McMaster asked: “If civilian leaders send troops into battle without a commitment to victory, who will sign up to serve? ” Indeed, those who served in support of Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere have wrestled with mixed feelings of anger, sadness and futility over the botched withdrawal and subsequent humanitarian crisis. And while an increasingly small percentage of our nation has served in the military, most Americans, regardless of political beliefs or social status, can agree that the haunting images of Afghans desperately clinging to the landing gear of U.S. military aircraft do not reflect our national aspirations.
But McMaster assigns fault too narrowly for our failed military interventions overseas. Much has been written about what went wrong in Afghanistan, Iraq, Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere. Even more has been written about which American president and who in Congress should bear the blame. But accountability goes beyond Presidents Bush, Obama, Trump and Biden or Congress. And if a democratically elected president and Congress are to blame, then we, the people, must share this burden. Democracy not only confers rights, but requires responsibilities. Our national values demand this.
Reflecting on the anniversary of 9/11 and faced with significant national and international challenges, we are presented with an opportunity to rediscover our values and perhaps bridge our divisiveness by making a principled examination of compulsory national service, whether in uniform or in other capacities.
Although compulsory military service (“the draft”) may connect the American public to our war efforts most demonstrably, military leaders historically have resisted the draft as the best means of filling the ranks of a professional force. But compulsory national service differs from a military draft in significant ways. Americans could fulfill service obligations in a range of organizations — in federal, state or local government, with an NGO, or even a public-private partnership — doing something they want to do. Further, much of the unfairness associated with the draft is nullified by compulsory national service because everyone would have to serve.
American public attitudes towards national service are changing. A 2017 Gallup poll revealed nearly half of Americans are in favor of a year of national service — the highest level of public support for universal service in almost two decades. Similarly, a 2021 Voices for National Service poll found 71 percent of young adults (aged 18-24) would consider or have already signed up for AmeriCorps. Beyond the heroics and horrors of war described in Tom Brokaw’s “The Greatest Generation,” a common thread among the Americans profiled in this book was a desire to return home, assimilate into a community, and continue to serve in some meaningful way. Although the rising generation of Americans may not go to war, their sentiments reflect the American desire to serve and be a part of a community.
While the vast majority of Americans may choose not to join the military, opportunity for service abounds. Nationally mandated service with options beyond the armed services would allow a rising generation of Americans to make a difference, develop skills and connect with fellow Americans by supporting a variety of initiatives, whether it be Covid-19 response, teaching in underserved communities, rebuilding the nation’s infrastructure, serving in the Peace Corps, or a number of other worthy endeavors. Perhaps President Biden’s legislative agenda may gain more support by tying certain benefits to a service requirement (such as student loan forgiveness).
With significant global threats emanating from numerous vectors, the next 20 years are poised to bring about a global reckoning. If the United States wishes to remain a world leader — both economically and morally — we have to return to our common values at home. National service could have a unifying effect that our nation needs. We must learn from our mistakes, reconnect with each other, recognize that our similarities exceed our differences, and emerge a version of America that is better equipped to face the challenges before us. We need to return to our values; universal service provides a path to do this.
U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio speaks with U.S. President Donald Trump during a Cabinet meeting in the Cabinet Room of the White House on May 27, 2026 in Washington, D.C. Trump met with his Cabinet days after saying a peace deal with Iran was“ largely negotiated” amid expectations around the re-opening the Strait of Hormuz.
The worst deal in the history of deals
As a former Republican, sometimes it’s fun to look back on the things we — I was part of a “we” at one time — criticized Democrats for, and not all that long ago.
Remember, if you will, when Republicans condemned former President Bill Clinton for pardoning his brother and his corrupt donor friend Marc Rich?
Or, remember when Republicans wagged their fingers at former President Barack Obama’s golf outings? Or his executive orders? Or his Syrian “red line”?
Or all the times Republicans went after former President Joe Biden’s gaffes?
While those criticisms may have been justified at the time, they look patently ridiculous next to our current president’s cartoonish and downright dangerous offenses.
Offenses like pardoning Jan. 6 insurrectionists — nearly 100 of whom have gone on to be arrested for, charged with, or convicted of crimes separate from the events of that day.
Or wreaking havoc on the global economy by instituting reckless tariffs on friends, neighbors, and enemies alike?
Or taking a proverbial sledge hammer to countless government agencies that have put every American in danger, whether on airplanes, in hospitals, at job sites, or in natural disasters.
That’s just a few, but nothing looks worse next to his predecessors than Donald Trump’s supposed Iran deal, at least as it’s outlined in the Memorandum of Understanding, the details of which Trump was loath to share.
And for good reason — they are shockingly bad and humiliating for the U.S.
I remember Obama’s Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action or JCPOA from 2015 very well. I, along with many Republicans as well as a cadre of foreign policy experts, criticized that deal for its obvious and problematic concessions to a very bad actor who we’ve long known could not be trusted. But trust was what we gave the Iranian regime, as well as sudden access to a boatload of cash — $100 billion, to be exact.
All of Obama’s provisions were temporary, which would allow Iran to restart enriching uranium upon their sunset; the deal didn’t address Iran’s ballistic missiles, or its funding of terrorist proxies like Hezbollah and Hamas; the supposed “anytime, anywhere” inspections came with a 24-day delay, if Iran so chose, giving them ample time to hide any suspect materials; and it didn’t require any congressional authority.
In short, I’d argue it wasn’t a great deal. But as bad as it was, it looks like the Magna Carta next to Trump’s.
Trump’s deal would give Iran immediate sanction relief and access to $300 billion, presumably to use to fund terror proxies; it doesn’t secure any upfront limits on uranium enrichment or missile development; it allows Iran to charge for safe passage through the Strait of Hormuz in the future; and it calls for Israel to stop its attacks on Hezbollah, another win for Iran.
Neither Americans nor the Middle East are safer than we were 100-plus days ago when Trump decided to pursue this folly. And in fact, our economy is weaker for it. But Iran is unquestionably stronger and more emboldened.
They’ve seen Trump’s weakness, unseriousness, and frighteningly limited appreciation for history. They’ve seen him retreat on most of his core threats to the regime, from bombing their cultural sites to ending a civilization overnight. And they’ve taken notice as he’s abandoned the promises that were supposedly central to his justification for war in the first place — regime change, liberating the Iranian people, and removing Iran’s nuclear materials.
What a waste of blood and treasure, not to mention American might and power, only so that our enemies can watch us limp desperately toward a conclusion that’s being described — by the right — as “unthinkable,” “appeasement,” and “the worst foreign policy blunder in decades.”
S.E. Cupp is the host of "S.E. Cupp Unfiltered" on CNN.