I’m conflicted on it.
In a case where a country is under constant threat of attack and there is a very real chance of that country being conquered by a hostile military power, I do see the argument for conscription. This argument works much better in freer countries, where the people enjoy a stable way of life. It becomes similar to taxes, everyone who lives under such a system is required to “chip in” for the good of the country. Take a country like Finland as an example. They have been invaded, multiple times, by The Russian Empire/Soviet Union. Having much of their population trained to fight a modern military conflict makes the cost of invasion much higher for the attacker. And I suspect the vast majority of Finns see their current government as preferable to domination by Russia.
The other side of that coin, is that a country might use those conscripts to engage in foreign military adventures, which have nothing to do with defending the country. The obvious example of this being the US involvement in Vietnam. US politicians got away with forcing many young men to go die, in a foreign country for really stupid reasons. And I would find it hard to ever agree with the US Government being allowed to draft soldiers again.
I could see a sort of “middle ground” option being useful. A “limited conscription”. This would require some period of training and public service as a form of taxation. Individuals are required to complete infantry training, so they have a basic understanding of modern infantry tactics, in the event a country is invaded. At the end of training, they then move into a public sector job for the rest of their term, with the option (entirely their choice) to serve in a military role. Such a system provides the country with a much larger pool of individuals with some training, in the event of invasion, and also provides a large, low level, work force to perform public works. I’m thinking of it as something like the Public Works Administration, except you first spend 6 months learning how to shoot a rifle and dig a trench. And then you spend the next 18 months building roads, improving levees, or handling the mountain of paperwork which feeds a bureaucracy.
I doubt such a system is what you’re asking about. But, at least in the US, I don’t think the people will trust the Federal Government to wield the power of a real military draft again for a long time. Vietnam is still well remembered and the debacle in the War in Iraq 2: Daddy Didn’t Go Far Enough, has people skeptical of the Government’s use of war powers. Though, technically, “The Draft” never really went away. US Males are required to sign up for “Selective Service” and the laws states that they can be called up to serve. But, unless the US is under direct threat of invasion, I expect that trying to do so would result in riots. At least, I hope any politician pushing that idea would get dragged out of his office and lynched in the streets.
I’m conflicted on it.
In a case where a country is under constant threat of attack and there is a very real chance of that country being conquered by a hostile military power, I do see the argument for conscription. This argument works much better in freer countries, where the people enjoy a stable way of life. It becomes similar to taxes, everyone who lives under such a system is required to “chip in” for the good of the country. Take a country like Finland as an example. They have been invaded, multiple times, by The Russian Empire/Soviet Union. Having much of their population trained to fight a modern military conflict makes the cost of invasion much higher for the attacker. And I suspect the vast majority of Finns see their current government as preferable to domination by Russia.
The other side of that coin, is that a country might use those conscripts to engage in foreign military adventures, which have nothing to do with defending the country. The obvious example of this being the US involvement in Vietnam. US politicians got away with forcing many young men to go die, in a foreign country for really stupid reasons. And I would find it hard to ever agree with the US Government being allowed to draft soldiers again.
I could see a sort of “middle ground” option being useful. A “limited conscription”. This would require some period of training and public service as a form of taxation. Individuals are required to complete infantry training, so they have a basic understanding of modern infantry tactics, in the event a country is invaded. At the end of training, they then move into a public sector job for the rest of their term, with the option (entirely their choice) to serve in a military role. Such a system provides the country with a much larger pool of individuals with some training, in the event of invasion, and also provides a large, low level, work force to perform public works. I’m thinking of it as something like the Public Works Administration, except you first spend 6 months learning how to shoot a rifle and dig a trench. And then you spend the next 18 months building roads, improving levees, or handling the mountain of paperwork which feeds a bureaucracy.
I doubt such a system is what you’re asking about. But, at least in the US, I don’t think the people will trust the Federal Government to wield the power of a real military draft again for a long time. Vietnam is still well remembered and the debacle in the War in Iraq 2: Daddy Didn’t Go Far Enough, has people skeptical of the Government’s use of war powers. Though, technically, “The Draft” never really went away. US Males are required to sign up for “Selective Service” and the laws states that they can be called up to serve. But, unless the US is under direct threat of invasion, I expect that trying to do so would result in riots. At least, I hope any politician pushing that idea would get dragged out of his office and lynched in the streets.