This question apparently arises at intervals.
Believe it or not, but in my high school in 1950 we had a debate (under Roberts Rules of Order) re: "Mandatory Universal Military Service". I took the affirmative.
Now my thinking is a little different.
In years past there were some who thought that a person joined a service because they couldn't do anything else, and that boys were encouraged to join to help them grow up. In WWII men were moved by patriotism to serve, and the rest were drafted. Women took part in auxiliaries, and worked in war plants. The later "police action" and war continued the active draft.
When the draft ended, and the services became voluntary, the requirements also rose.
That is what I now prefer.
Opportunities like the Peace Corps and AmericaCorps that required a set commitment to serve attracted people.
I now wonder if mandatory military service would affect the professionalism of today's units.
However, there are other sectors in which people could serve other than military. IMO, there are not enough engaged in secular or religious groups, like churches, to fill the needs , as in the proposed "Faith Based" groups action.
It would be difficult to mandate people putting their private lives on hold for a set period of time. Also finding a way to pay for it, because, IMO, they would have to be paid at least a stipend.
I recall the successes of the WPA and CCC. So, government programs can work.
I suspect that the best time to start with mandates would be with high school. Money for college or trade schools would be a good incentive, but I support the same length of service as required by the military.
Angeline
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com