A case for universal national service

That many western countries do it suggests there is merit in the idea.

The obvious benefits are mainly two. One is that the country gets fine young people recently out of high school to work for the nation for a short period of time. And they are paid at local wages. The not so obvious benefits are also two. One is the great homogenizing effect as young people from throughout the nation are mixed together, one might say exposed to each other. And once conscripted, many will choose to volunteer for existing national organizations such as the military or AmeriCorps as an alternative. At least past experience predicts this.

Realistically, only about one third of those who are subject to conscription will be mentally, morally, or physically qualified. And the probable exemptions are for the politicians and voters to decide. Universal national service is an idealistic title, at best. But using simple round off numbers, about 2 million young people would enter the eligible group each year, and if the country conscripted 500,000 a year, that is a big number, especially if the service period was two years.

Keeping things simple as can be is important. Inductees would enter one National Conscription Corps (NCC) for basic and follow on skill training, much like the military does. Politicians and those with bigger egos can suggest other names. There would be one NCC uniform style and logo. The training period would take about 6 months in all, to include travel time. The NCC’s mission would be national service, with three sub-Corps’ focusing on homeland security (to include import safety), rural and urban public policy infrastructure, and infrastructure maintenance. The NCC would not be a jobs training program, in all cases, and must not compete with local wage earners. Nor is it a career program. Those familiar with co-op programs will see a similar decentralized management means to keep these conscripts assigned and working for our nation's benefit. Conscripts wishing to pursue a career with the Border Patrol or local construction company or FDA subcontractor, for examples, would apply through their processes at the end of their national service period. The suggested period of conscription would be two years, with 6 months going towards training and 18 months towards service. Given the probable learning curve time of 6 more months, the nation might expect 12 months of productive service, which may not sound like much. But don’t forget the homogenizing effect as young people from throughout the land are mixed and live together, and many are motivated to join the military or other such national services.

Any successful national program does not go from speed 0 to 60 in one year, including this idea. Rather, ramp up the program over a three to five year period, so the left and right hands get a chance to know each other and work together for the common good.

As always, reinforce success, not failure. Once started, there will be American lessons learned and improvements to getting the mission accomplished.