I don't like the idea of any kind of draft or required service, but I do like the idea of expanding ways to serve our country voluntarily.

Having a draft is only a good idea in dire emergencies. I would say having enough soldiers during WWI and WWII were the only real events in the last hundred years that a draft should have been required. I think drafting citizens for Vietnam and Korea were not necessary and ended up causing more problems for the country. Being in the US military is for a special type of individual.

The biggest reason not to have a draft is the fact that our military is completely voluntary. Those who serve are there because they want to be there. I don't believe it is a good idea to put citizens through boot camp and give them weapons unless that is something they really want to do or there is no choice for the country's security. We have the finest military in the world and it would not get better with people forced to join it. The military in it's present form is not about number of bodies, but about the types of training they have and the types of advanced equipment they use.

However, I would agree that serving our country is a good idea and increasing the types of programs in which to do so VOLUNTARILY would be great.

There could be dozens of options, maybe more. Military would just be one option, but if you chose another it should not include military training, only training for that particular field or federal agency, such as working for the U.S. Postal Service, U.S. Forest Service, Army Corps of Engineers, Veterans Administration, etc. It would be almost like an internship, where you could get paid some or earn money for college or trade school.

I was going to join the military (Navy or Marines), but I received an academic scholarship to college out of high school. Honestly, the military did not need me and I had no other reason to do anything else.

There are plenty of people that would be of little benefit to the country as a mandated worker and might even be detrimental to the service they are forced into.

There are others that leave high school or even college with no direction at all and they could really be helped by serving the country in some way and learning a skill without having to worry about having to use weapons or put themselves in harm's way.

Reinstating the draft is only cause illegal immigration to Canada as our brave patriotic young men and women avoid the draft. In dire situations a draft shouldn't be needed. Here's a little known fact to ponder. During WWII 75% of all soldiers had to be drafted after Pearl Harbor was attacked there simply weren't enough men willing to fight for their country. The men that fought in Korea were already drafted and scheduled for the occupation forces of Japan when their troop transports were diverted. During the Vietnam war when the draft became unpopular only 25% of the men that fought were drafted, the other 75% volunteered knowing full well they were headed for the RVN.
Americans do not want to fight to protect their freedoms, rights or anything else. Certain jobs have been curtailed not because outsourcing is cheaper, each Congress beginning with the Carter administration has cut the troop levels so bad that certain jobs have to be manned first before any other jobs can be filled. Even Reagan tried to beef up the military but was stopped, so he reduced reserve strength in favor of more active duty forces. His 300 ship Navy never materialized and since then there has been a RIF (Reduction In Forces) to reduced the cost of government. Problem is, Bush and Obama had to order stop gaps measurements by keeping men and women in critical areas past their contract dates and in some situations kept those men and women in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The draft shouldn't be reinstated, rather each man and woman age 18 or over should be required to serve a two year hitch in the military, four year hitch in Vista or a six year hitch in some other government service area. No after service benefits unless you go beyond your original tour, minimum wage to start and if college is in your future, fine, you serve after you get your sheepskin. There should also be a mandatory ten year time frame to be held in the reserves. If everyone is fighting for the rights of unions, illegals and welfare people, etc it's time to serve to maintain those rights.

I bet that if the draft was reinstated right now, there'd be a lot of interest in ending the war(s), precisely because it would mean that wide group of people would be vulnerable to going overseas to fight. And the loopholes for the rich and influential need to be tightened up, so the Dan Quayles and George W Bushes don't get the "champagne service" just because Daddy says "my son doesn't have to get shot at".

But I wouldn't have a draft in peacetime.

Let us look to what Daniel Webster said on this question: "Where is it written in the Constitution that you may take children from their parents, and parents from their children, and compel them to fight the battles of any war in which the folly or wickedness of government may engage it?"

Military service to one's country and people is both noble and worthy, but when you must compel individuals to perform it, that service is nothing more than servitude. The draft was never popular anywhere or at any time. I would recommend it not be reinstated.

"Military service to one's country and people is both noble and worthy, but when you must compel individuals to perform it, that service is nothing more than servitude. The draft was never popular anywhere or at any time. I would recommend it not be reinstated."

Yes! I actually agree. I just think that the proposal of a draft might be a good way to seriously end the war(s), because everyone would have to start thinking seriously about the cost in lives. Then it might hit home. Dubya was very coy about not letting the flag-covered coffins be seen by the media, and that helps keep the war as something that happens to other people. I don't really want anyone drafted.

It seems worth noting that the armed forces are hurting for people who can pass the physical these days, as well as the rotten pay and other conditions for those who get in. "You go to war with the army you have, not the army you want", Rumsfeld said, but that's a poor excuse for sending troops into danger without body armor, or paying decent wages (and Dubya wanted to cut benefits!) Where does all that Pentagon money go, anyhow? I know, I know, on $600 hammers.

All I want is for the conscripts to serve 8 weeks in military training, following which there's a wide range of different national service they could do - peace corps, working as teachers' aides in elementary schools, whatever.

It wouldn't be strictly military, although I think more would volunteer for the military if they had to do a stint anyway. Others would work in different areas.

I read an interesting proposal along these lines. One option would be for military service, the second for other-than-military service. The third option, what the writer called the libertarian option, provided for no service at all. In return, however, those who took this option and chose not to serve their country would, as far as practicable, not be served by their country - no eligibility for Medicaid or Medicare, no eligibility for government subsidized education of housing, etc. This choice would be reversible, however - the older fellow approaching retirement and worried about outliving his savings could even then reinstate his Medicare eligibility by joining up and "driving a general around for a couple of years." (Obviously this last would need some work because Medicare is an insurance program, eligibility for which is established by 10 years of premium payments.)

Nobody else has any opinion on reinstating the draft, even in a modified form to include forms of service other than military?

I think that the best option would be to design a system similar to Israel's. If you are over 18, you have to stay in the army for a certain period of time. I think that 18 months obligatory service time should be enough for US. During that time, you would be payed minimum wages and if you finish your service without any accident, should be entitled to no special benefits.

After you do your duty, a mandatory 10 years of reserve service should be enough to provide needed men in any case of emergency.

Since certain people would definitely be against carrying arms, whether to the personal or religious reasons, I would give them an option of civil service. You do not want to be a soldier? Fine, you can be a cook, a gardener, a worker at the community kitchen or senior citizens center, all for minimum wages, like any regular soldier. Only, since you do not think it is good for you to fight for your country, the required time for civil service should be the double, that is 36 months.

This way, you would cut the costs, keep the required level of troops and provide incentive for the rich kids to be against some avoidable wars.

Yes - Dr Darko articulated best what many said. What I'd like to see is mandatory national service performed by all - think of it as the young adult's down payment for all the benefits of living in the USA.

And in terms of socialization and democratization, I don't think it's possible to overestimate the value of universal national service.

Pallas is also accurate, IMO, when she predicts that exposing the entire next generation to the possibility of war will make their parents, uncles, aunts and grandparents far more attentive to the adventurism of whoever's controlling the government.

Nice answers, everyone! Thanks much!

Thank you very much for this award GADale! I have to say that national service without exception is a perfect democratization tool. I always remember those images of Elvis going to the army...

In the current recession, I think that this would actually help stabilize the country. Let us hope that some future leader will have enough courage and vision to implement such obligatory service...