Has anyone floated the idea of mandatory immediate-post-high-school service for all Americans with a choice between civil service and military service? Presumably (and I hate to assume but I suspect it is a safe assumption) most folks would opt for civil rather than military service. In such case, perhaps a shorter military obligation -- say 2-3 years (whatever minimum length felt practically useful by military leaders) -- and 2-3 years + 1 for civil service. Might be nice if all Americans got used to the idea of actually giving something back to the country rather than simply striving to make the most of the opportunities afforded them by living in this country. Just my $ 0.02 worth, TFS

Bill Clinton invented the AmeriCorps, which hasn't been very popular. It hasn't been compulsory either.

Civil service? It's a great idea on paper; people volunteering their time to make the country better.

In reality, we already pay taxes that are supposed to pay for the projects that would make this country better, say maintaining existing bridges for example. However, much of the taxes we pay seem to get spent on earmarks that serve no useful public purpose and put money in the wallets of campaign contribuitors, an uncessary new bridge in Alaska for exampe.

In short, I am not really interested in volunteering my time on top of the taxes I already pay to nake it easier for the government to buy more pork.

Volunteer? Who said volunteer? The key word there was mandatory. I would have been very interested in participating in civil service after high school, but since there was far more incentive to get to college\start life etc....

Making service of some sort mandatory would be a great social equalizer. Most like myself would opt out of the military, but I think you could expect to see enlistment rates go up. As for the "paying taxes" concern, well, if we were out there actually building things, doing relief work and the like, then the public would have a much better idea what their money was going towards, and thus might be more inclined to keep pork out of congress.

And remember Kerry's proposal for mandatory disaster training for everyone? Different idea, but still a good one. Civil service is always good, and you don't need to carry a weapon to serve America.

Expansion of service programs is an item discussed by most of the Dem candidates, particularly Dodd, Edwards, and Obama. Mark Warner, before he decided not to run, did talk a bit about truly universal service, though I'm not sure he committed to it.

manditory service or draft service just adds a bunch of il-trained people into server. People that don't want to be there. Its a waste of time/people and money. Lots of countries have manditory server (like russia) and where has it gotten their military?

Leave it to the people that want to volunteer and be adequatly trained.

the duty of citizen toward nation is concerned. But the very fact of mandating good citizenship is a political deadfall.

The very reason there was no united call for a military draft in order to bring Bush's Iraq War venture to a successful conclusion when everything started to go belly up is that the very notion chilled most politicians to their very soul - or to what passes for a soul among politicians.

On the whole - and for all the talking loud attitude on the Right, the notion of giving anything back to the nation is essentially anathema to most people, and politicians are aware of this reality. So it goes.

are we slaves? because i been working like one for the last 35 years, and i never heard of anyone give me something free, so why anyone should give his only life just to preserve the vast riches of, in this case, oil companies figthing in irak? just because the powerfull whant more resources in their power and control, they go and invade, kill millions, oopss, sorry.... WE do that and they just profit from that without even bother to look all the suffering. they do not care if you return alive or in pieces, besides this is america the biggest company in this planet, remember companies make money and not charity, go dream to mars, and make us profit from the stupids who believe in "their nation".

Does anyone have any idea what useful work these millions of people doing civil service would do, things that wouldn't just be make-work? In other words, not to have people using wheelbarrows just to keep them busy, when a project would normally be done with heavy equipment. Or not to expose them to hazards just to get work done on the cheap (the way foreign workers are used for clean-up in New Orleans).

And, if projects can be identified, where will the leadership come from? There _could_ be excellent leadership, but in practice look what is done with project management by FEMA, the Pentagon, etc, where cronyism, careerism, and political pork are the guiding principles.

the idea of mandatory national service for both genders, like some 3rd world countries, has been raised many times since the end of world war 2. it had its genesis in the peace corps, when politicians thought it would be terrific to send legions of enthusiastic but largely witless high school grads across the world to combat "problems" - i'm not just talking starving kids in china, of course - but starving kids in appalachia, conservation efforts in backwoods montana that sort of thing.

many problems have been identified with this mandatory work for uncle sam plan:

• 3rd world countries tend to regard US government employees, and even NGO employees, as spies, which in some cases they are. google the recent headlines about the korean volunteers for peace in the middle east, and how they make appropriate hostages for ransom
• domestically, the kinds of jobs jimmy carter had in mind for his domestic peace corps are exactly the kinds of jobs which dues paying union members already perform - repairing urban infrastructure (decrepit buildings and bridges); hospital aid workers; head start style classroom assistants . .. every kid you put in this kind of role makes a potential union job go away.
• mandatory service is likely to result in mandatory shenanigans to evade service, as with the draft. People will pay bribes, fake injuries, cite the widowed mother at home . . . a zillion excuses about why they shouldn't spend 2-3 years at a low paying, no skills learned job instead of getting on with real life.
• do you actually know any "happy" government workers? even those being paid good wages? what do you think the outcome will be with legions of underpaid, untrained, poorly supervised kids set loose in urban environments? how about wholesale theft of government property, sexual harassment/abuse, drug sales on the job, record absenteeism, outright fraud of "ghost workers" who are paid but never show up . . .

start at the beginning . . . what "problem" exists, and why is national service the "best" solution?

...is preferable to citizenship equals service. With the former, you have a choice whether the right to vote and hold public office is worth the risk to life and limb, whereas the latter gives no way of opting out short of leaving the country or going to prison. A draft simply obscures unfairness by using a lottery which leaves out half the population, and universal service masks it by imposing unfairness on everyone. Give people a choice in military or civilian service, and make the length of service necessary related to the risk of the job -- hazard time in addition to hazard pay. Earning citizenship through service would also limit the number of future chickenhawks in elected office.

How about this option for increasing our troops?

Why don't we just recruit violent criminals in jail, especially gang members. Most of them already know how to use a gun, and it solves the secondary problem of our overcrowded prison system.

Perhaps when a violent criminal is being sentenced, the judge can give him a choice of several years in the pen or serving in Iraq.

That's an amazingly bad idea.

Have you thought about how many people that would involve? If we kept it to 2 years it would be well over 8 million youths. Add in a third year (which would be unconscionable on other grounds) and we'd be over 12 million.

How would that be paid for? We're bankrupting the country just to pay for an Army a tiny fraction of that size. I guess we could arm them with clubs and slingshots, or just line them up and use them as cannon fodder. That would be comparatively inexpensive, though we still have to feed, clothe and shelter 8 million people somehow.

Yeah, I'm sure the officers that objected to fighting with draftees who'd rather not be there would change their mind in a heartbeat if they knew they were also violent criminals.

how about we just draft females? they represent the majority of the population and have never been forced to war like the millions of males have..they need their "turn" to be truly "equal"...