I would rather 30-46, once people are trained and have skills.

Yes, because forcing people to leave their families and jobs for the sake of an "eye opening experience" is such a good idea.

...I lived in a hotel on the River Kwai. The hotel was used for a 2 week orientation for The Peace Corps newbies. I had always thought of doing a stint with them. It was a real eye opener. Now, I don't want to slag the Corps, but they have an up to 30% attrition rate and that's within weeks after deployment. The age range of this group of 30-40 people was 20 something to 60 something. I got to observe them for the two weeks.
Part of the problem IMO, was the unrealistic idealism of the recruits; young and old alike. The other part of the problem was where and how they were deployed. After orientation, they were sent to rural areas to live with Thai families. Two weeks later they regrouped at the hotel for a debriefing. From overheard conversations it became apparent many of them were "culture shocked". A traditional Thai house can be tough to take for some, especially a poor one. Take the most rural America 150 years ago and add humidity and temperature mixed with mosquitoes. Oh, and this group lost some 20 somethings and the 60 somethings and some in between. Too bad. That should be fixable.
Okay, my point; The Peace Corps is a great idea, but (here{Thailand} at least) I think it needs a major revamp. There is an excellent book called "Culture Shock" and it's about Thailand. Two years mandatory social service; you bet. 20 - 35 or 40 sure. But, how about here (America) first. Any body with Corps experience?

to send them 20-year-old USAians, who are basically going to be laborers. Can someone explain what they would do that can't be done by the local labor force? Aren't countries in the "developing" world, almost by definition, drowning in surplus labor and starved for work for the laborers to do?

The service does not have to be overseas, but a good many young people would probably jump at that chance. The service doesn't even have to be outside the person's home town; there's plenty that needs to be done everywhere...plenty.

It's a very good idea, and i think that it could easily be combined with some form of education between HS and university. I would imagine that such a time (especially in the 18-20 set) would contribute to an improvement in young people getting to college with something other than getting drunk and laid on their minds.

But if it is to be mandatory, it should probably be very flexible...including the ability to accrue volunteer hours over 4-6 years for those who don't want the intense experience.

What a monumentally stupid idea! Not surprising from a Lifer like Lang, who thinks everything valuable in life is learned in 90 days of barracks life.

Anyone who wants to double check on Col. Lang's grip on reality, just post a note to his blog expressing that securing oil supplies was a core goal of the Iraq War. He will begin by denying it, continue by calling unqualified to discuss such lofty matters, and follow up with a curt email telling you to go away.

But I digress.

A mandatory draft for visionary, peaceful purposes of laboring in the Third World for purposes of improving one's character is carrying coals to Newcastle. There is already lots of labor in the Third World.

What it will actually accomplish is making the draft an integral part of life in American, and that leads straight to a military draft, and that is just what the neocons in charge of our government need most. I include the new Administration in that neocon label, just so you don't misunderstand.

Behind this fantasy of all our 18-year olds marching together to some glorious future is the primal fascist impulse to put citizens second in line behind the State. There is no turning back from that fatal step. No government that harvests its youth for its own aims refrains from wars and foreign adventures for long, and no government that does so survives for long.

Go back and read your Mein Kampf with 'opened eyes' Sean. The glorious march of the pure youth carrying the nation to greatness is spelled out right there, in infinite detail.

What a monumentally stupid idea.

mandatory service alone is 'eye-opening'.

Mandatory service has a practical side. If we still had a draft would that have made a difference in the public's response to the war in Iraq?

Can't know for sure. I think it would have.

After all, we have a huge country to try to understand. Most Americans would do well just to spend a little time in the Deep South and come to their own conclusions about it.

I have the benefit of a parent who relocated to the US as an adult, so I can't really imagine life without a multicultural perspective. But still-- no matter how generic your upbringing, you don't have to leave your own hometown to experience radically different ways of life (unless you live in some kind of Mormon small-town dystopia). You just have to be open to it.

Conversely, you can travel the entire world and not bother to get to know the places you visit. Just look at the cruise industry, for instance. Five-star hotels. Exotic vacation resorts. These things occupy places in other countries, but they are more or less impervious to other cultures.

I wonder, though: Do you think less of Thais or Iranians who don't go abroad? Do you think that everyone who is wealthy by a global standard has an obligation to spend their time and treasure on international travel rather than, say, ongoing education or artistic ventures or spiritual seeking?

You don't have to open your intestines to exotic parasites in order to open your mind to new sorts of consciousness. It's just one way (and for you, evidently a very good way).

And I did do 1 year of civilian service when I was in Europe. Not a bad year, helped out in a community for drug addict recovery, I was in charge of running their library. But mostly it felt like a way for the Government to exploit cheap labor (like having Churches take care of the poor instead of having actual programs to reduce poverty).

anything in the United States does not cut it. Sorry. Always sounds good. Mandatory service to the US of A, what, in the name of - uh - freedom.

The thing that is lost on so many is that there are plenty of 18-20 year with good character already, thank you very much. They don't need Daddy taking them by the hand and sticking them in a program THEY think will build their character - which by the way they may already have in spades.

So take a good kid who has done his/her best in school and is ready to go out into the world with some great idea, and tie them up for two years. In the name of what?? Some ideological brainfart of a bureaucrat.

Guess I got a little agitated at the end, but this idea appalls me on a whole host of levels. Don't get me wrong. Take the 'mandatory' off and it sounds like a good idea, not a great one, but a good one. The word mandatory is being added by those who in their heart of hearts hate 18-20 year olds and want to put them ALL in a prison of some sort. Hence the mandatory part. AND I love the idea of actually imprisoning a bunch of 18-20 year olds because they REFUSE to do their mandatory community service.

We can set up, um boot camps in Arizona (those tent cities we all read about teenagers dieing in because a bunch of tough old coots wanted to teach those 18-20 year olds without character character - but then accidentally killed them. Oops.) What else do you do with those yahooos who won't do their service but lock em up?

i spent four years overseas as part of my military service, six months of which were spent in Bosnia during a NATO "peacekeeping" mission. I will say this experience has helped open my eyes, but it doesn't do this for everyone. You still have to have curiosity and intelligence. It was sad to see so many of my fellow soldiers pissing on this oppurtunity to learn by constantly bitching about the fact that they were not in the good ole' USA.

to say this will open people's eyes, is a stretch. if you are already of the curious and open mind....then an idea like this will do more for you than you can imagine. if you are a closed-minded variety....then you will just piss this chance away. i've seen it happen.

Columnist: Draft is needed because we may have to invade Pakistan
David Edwards and Muriel Kane
Published: Monday January 12, 2009

Conservative columnist Tony Blankley foresees a dangerous future, in which the United States will be able to ensure its own survival only through a universal military draft and may routinely have to commit hundreds of thousands of troops to overseas excursions, including a potential invasion of Pakistan.

Blankley, a former Reagan speechwriter and Newt Gingrich press secretary, is the author of The West's Last Chance: Will We Win the Clash of Civilizations? (2005) which raised the specter of a Europe dominated by radical Islam. His new book is called American Grit.

"If we don't do a lot of things smart and tough, we could get overwhelmed," Blankley told the hosts of Fox & Friends on Monday. "We've failed to exploit our energy. We're not paying enough attention to what our kids are learning -- Bill Ayers is actually a senior person in guiding the curriculum design of America."

One of Blankley's more eye-catching proposals in American Grit is that all eighteen year olds should be subject to two years of required military service.

"I don't like it, I love the volunteer army ... but we don't have enough troops," Blankley explained. "When George Bush wanted to have the surge, he was told by the senior generals we didn't have the extra 20,000 troops to finish the war. ... Now Obama wants to go to Afghanistan ... but he says we don't have the troops unless we pull them out of Iraq. What happens if Pakistan goes jihad-y? We don't have the troops to go in there and stop them from taking over the nuclear weapons."

more :)