why is conscription good?

Question

i have a debate coming up and unfortunately i'm on the agree side. thanks

Answer 1

It makes the military democratic and prevents an elite from dominating the military.

When the military becomes an elite force it can think it is superior to the people and overthrow the government,

Having average citizens in the military is a check and balance on the use of military force. It forces Congress and the President to be more responsible.

Answer 2

1

Answer 3

Simple: creates loyalty to the state, and increase the military power.

Answer 4

Conscription is a general term for involuntary labor demanded by some established authority, but it is most often used in the specific sense of government policies that require citizens (often just males) to serve in their armed forces. It is known by various names — for example, the most recent conscription program in the United States was known colloquially as "the draft". Many nations do not maintain conscription forces, instead relying on a volunteer or professional military most of the time, although many of these countries still reserve the possibility of conscription for wartime and "crises" of supply.

"Conscription" has also sometimes been used as a general term for non-military involuntary labour demanded by some established authority; for example, some translators of Old Testament commentaries use the term to describe the levies of labour used to build the Temple of Solomon. In Japan during World War II, Japanese women and children were conscripted to work in factories.

Referring to forced service in the armed forces, the term "conscription" has two main meanings:

forced service, usually of young men of a given age, e.g. 17 – 18, for a set period of time, commonly 1 – 2 years. (In the United Kingdom and Singapore this was commonly known as "national service"; in New Zealand, at first compulsory military training and later national service); in Norway, Safeguard Duty / 1st time service.
forced service, for an indefinite period of time, in the context of a widespread mobilisation of forces for fighting war, including on the home territory, usually imposed on men in a much wider age group (e.g. 18 – 45). (In the United Kingdom this was commonly known as "call-up").
The term "conscription" refers only to the mandatory service; thus, those undergoing conscription are known as "conscripts" or "selectee" in the United States (from the Selective Service System or the Selective Service Initiative announced in 2004).

In the U.S. the term "enlisted" is often used to refer only to those who have volunteered for service in roles other than as commissioned officers.



Invention of modern conscription
Modern conscription was invented during the French Revolution, allowing the Republic to defend itself from European monarchies' attacks. Deputy Jean-Baptiste Jourdan gave its name to the September 5, 1798 Act, whose first article stated: "Any Frenchman is a soldier and owes himself to the defense of the nation." It enabled the creation of the Grande Armée, what Napoleon Bonaparte called "the nation in arms", which successfully battled European professional armies.

According to philosopher Michel Foucault, conscription is one of the forms taken by "disciplinary institutions", along with hospitals, schools and prisons. Louis Althusser has also underlined how Machiavelli was one of the first modern theorists to think the relationship between conscription and the creation of a nation, or successfully bolstering patriotism. Machiavelli despised the use of mercenaries and professional armies, which at this time were ravaging the divided Italian states.

When the conscripts are being sent to foreign wars that do not directly affect the security of the nation, has historically been highly politically contentious in democracies. For instance, during World War I, bitter disputes broke out in Canada (see Conscription Crisis of 1917), Australia and New Zealand (See Compulsory Military Training) over conscription. Canada also had a political dispute over conscription during World War II (see Conscription Crisis of 1944). Similarly, mass protests against conscription to fight the Vietnam War occurred in several countries in the late 1960s. (See also: Conscription Crisis)

In the United States, the increasing emphasis on technological firepower and the sheer unlikelihood of a conventional military assault, as well as memories of the contentiousness of the Vietnam War experience, make mass conscription unlikely in the foreseeable future. Also, United States has a considerable nuclear weapons arsenal, and relies on nuclear deterrent. Several developed nations, however, do not rely on nuclear deterrent and maintain conscription.


[edit] Gender issue
Some countries which draft women include North Korea, Peru, Libya, Israel, and Eritrea. In 2002, Sweden's government asked the army to consider mandatory military service for women. Some have considered the practice of excluding women from the draft unfair, because they feel it goes against principles of equality. Some simply argue that women can be militarily useful, and that excluding them places an unnecessary limit on resources. During World War II, women were drafted into the armed forces of the United Kingdom and the Soviet Union. The United States came close to drafting women into the Nurse Corps in preparation for a planned invasion of Japan; the Japanese surrender made this unnecessary.

The non-egalitarian policy practiced by some countries of drafting men and not women has often been a flash point and source of conflict. This policy is often cited by some masculists as an example of an unfair policy which benefits women over men. Gender egalitarians point out that, in the long run, such a policy supports social thinking about women as weaker and less able beings, and is therefore not really an overall benefit to women - more of a double edged sword (or golden chain). Apprehension about the possible conscription of women was a key factor that led to the defeat of the Equal Rights Amendment in the United States.[citation needed]

In 1981 in the United States, several men filed lawsuit in the case Rostker v. Goldberg, alleging that the Military Selective Service Act violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment by requiring that men only and not also women register with the SSS. The Supreme Court eventually upheld the Act, stating that "the argument for registering women was based on considerations of equity, but Congress was entitled, in the exercise of its constitutional powers, to focus on the question of military need, rather than 'equity.'"[1]

Conscription certainly imposes on the freedom of the individual and although some conscripts feel that they benefited from the experience others feel that their time could have been spent more productively pursuing their chosen studies or career paths.[2] Individual resentment may also be compounded by the typically low wages paid to conscripts, especially in countries such as Greece, Finland and Singapore. Feminists and others calling for more equal treatment of women in society have rarely extended their demands to include a call for equality for women with regards the draft.[citation needed]


[edit] Conscientious objection
Main articles: Conscientious objection, Antimilitarism, and Conscientious objection throughout the world
A conscientious objector is an individual whose personal beliefs are incompatible with military service, or sometimes with any role in the armed forces. In some countries, conscientious objectors have special legal status which augments their conscription duties. For example, Sweden allows conscientious objectors to choose a service in the "weapons-free" branch, such as an airport fireman, nurse or telecommunications technician. Some may also refuse such service as they feel that they still are a part of the military complex. The reasons for refusing to serve are varied. Some conscientious objectors are so for religious reasons — notably, the members of the historic peace churches are pacifist by doctrine, and Jehovah's Witnesses, while not strictly speaking pacifists, refuse to participate in the armed services on the grounds that they believe Christians should be neutral in worldly conflicts.


[edit] Draft evaders
Not everyone who is conscripted is willing to go to war. In the United States, especially during the Vietnam Era, many young people used their family's political connections to ensure that they were placed well away from any potential harm. Those with political influence often joined the military and served in what was termed a Champagne unit.

Many would avoid military service altogether through college deferments, by becoming fathers, or serving in various exempt jobs (teaching was one possibility). Others used educational exemptions, became conscientious objectors or pretended to be conscientious objectors, although they might then be drafted for non-combat work, such as serving as a combat medic. It was also possible they could be asked to do similar civilian work, such as being a hospital orderly.

It was, in fact, quite easy for those with some knowledge of the system to avoid being drafted. A simple route, widely publicized, was to get a medical rejection. While a person could claim to have symptoms (or feign homosexuality), if enough physicians sent letters that a person had a problem, he might well be rejected. It often wasn't worth the Army's time to dispute this claim. Such an approach worked best in a larger city where there was no stigma to not serving, and the potential draftee was not known too those reviewing him.

One scene in a film that accurately captures the chaotic situation in the lower Manhattan draft center where people slipped through the cracks is in Alice's Restaurant. In this case the person was rejected for a criminal record (littering), but people probably evaded for less. Conversely it was the poor and uneducated who were often swept up without any understanding of how to escape the system.

For others, the most common method of avoiding the draft was to cross the border into another country. People who have been "called up" for military service and who attempted to avoid it in some way were known as "draft-dodgers". Particularly during the Vietnam War, U.S. draft-dodgers usually made their way to Canada, Mexico or Switzerland.

Many people looked upon draft-dodgers with scorn as being "cowards", but some supported them in their efforts. In the late years of the war, objections against it and support for draft-dodgers was much more outspoken, because of the casualties suffered by American troops, and the actual cause and purpose of the war being heavily questioned.

Toward the end of the U.S. draft an attempt was made to make the system somewhat fairer by turning it into a lottery, with each of the year's calendar dates randomly assigned a number. Men born on lower numbered dates were called up for review. For the reasons given above, this did not make the system any fairer, and the entire system ended in 1973. Today, American men 18-25 are required to register with the government, but there has not been a callup since the Vietnam Era.


[edit] Draft resisters
Main article: Antimilitarism
Historically, there has been resistance to conscription in almost every country and situation where it has been imposed. In the USA and some other countries, the Vietnam War saw new levels of opposition to conscription and the Selective Service System. Many people opposed to and facing conscription chose to either apply for classification and assignment to civilian alternative service or noncombatant service within the military as conscientious objectors, or to evade the draft by fleeing to a neutral country. A small proportion, like Muhammad Ali, chose to resist the draft by publicly and politically fighting conscription. Some people resist at the point of registration for the draft [1] . In the USA since 1980, for example, the draft resistance movement has focused on mandatory draft registration. [2] [3] Others resist at the point of induction, when they are ordered to put on a uniform, when they are ordered to carry or use a weapon, when they are ordered into combat, or when they are ordered to commit what they believe to be war crimes or atrocities.

There are those who are immune to the draft. These people include anyone who works for the government (Teachers, police officers, lawmakers, etc), People who work for government contractors, and those who work in jobs essential to the operation of the country (waste management, power plants, etc).

A government can also grant an exemption from conscription to a group of people based upon religious grounds. One instance is the Amish people in the United States who are immune from any military callup and do not have to register for selective service.


[edit] Deserters
Some conscripts who were registered for military service, nevertheless failed to arrive at induction and were listed as Absent Without Leave (AWOL). Others, simply deserted while in uniform, or handed their weapons over to the enemy. During the Angolan War, the African National Congress (ANC) called for South African soldiers to desert.


[edit] Countries with mandatory military service
See: Military service
Small countries often have mandatory military service, citing the inability to form a professional army of sufficient size. Neutral countries, in particular, institute conscription to organize an independent defense, that is, to eliminate the need for foreign support.

Communist countries, particularly the Soviet Union and its satellites, used conscription. The tradition continues in Russia and in numerous other countries formed in the collapse of Soviet Union.


[edit] Countries without mandatory military service
See: Military service
Large countries are able to create large professional armies. Possession of nuclear weapons also enables the country to use nuclear deterrent instead of a large regular army as the mainstay of defence. An alliance with the United States, i.e. a NATO membership, provides a nuclear umbrella that also allows a country to eschew large-scale conscription.


[edit] Arguments for conscription

[edit] Valuable training
Some communitarians argue that peacetime conscription is an ideal tool for teaching a population basic, important skills such as first aid, swimming, wilderness survival and so on. However, it can also be argued that these skills could better be taught in the public school system than during mandatory service.


[edit] Rite of passage
In many countries, conscription serves as a rite of passage. The prospective man is tested, to see whether or not he can endure the hardships of military training and earn the right to be called a man. Military service, in countries that have it, may then be seen as the test of manhood. Conscription may inspire camaraderie, unifying a people: all able-bodied males together as a union have had the same experience and are soldiers, and that may create unity and team spirit within a nation. This idealism is often seen as sexist, militaristic or discriminating against conscientious objectors. On the other hand, conscription is considered by some as a useful tool in inspiring a national spirit.

A good example of this is Finland, where having acquired a reserve military rank is considered by some people a valuable asset for a manager position in civilian work, carrying prestige comparable to education, work experience or recommendations. On the other hand, many employers in Finland don't care at all about former military training (or lack of thereof) of a job applicant or an employee, and military training is almost never a requirement to a job. Almost all Finnish managers are either reserve non-commissioned officers or reserve officers (see management by perkele). It is unclear however if persons with best management abilities are selected to be trained as officers or if management skills useful in the civilian world are learned in the training.


[edit] Draft as protection against democracy-destroying military coups
Some argue that conscription should be connected to democracy. A professional army can possibly become a dangerous state-within-a-state. Military virtues such as obedience to orders and respect for the chain of command can possibly be abused by aspiring dictators. Armed forces can attract — consciously or unconsciously — people who prefer authoritarian systems. The army can even become the only chance for a job and decent life in times of unemployment (this was crucial in the rise of Japanese militarism[citation needed]), or for despised minorities. Such people may come to regard the army as their home and elevate it above the state.

On the other hand, once in power dictators such as Napoleon, Hitler, Stalin, and Saddam Hussein have used conscription to drive their undemocratic ambitions. The most significant attempt on Hitler's life was from the professional component of his military.


[edit] Manpower
Small countries have several options to raise a sizeable army. One is to put every able-bodied man under arms. This is how Switzerland managed to stay independent despite repeated attacks throughout history. The Swiss militias were so successful that their fighting style and weapons (especially the halberd) were quickly adopted by their enemies. This in turn made the Swiss very popular as mercenaries; many rulers even raised Swiss Guards. The rich Flemish trade cities of the early 14th century raised huge militias that could even defeat armies of knights. The famous Battle of the Golden Spurs (1302) is a good example.

Other options for national defense include membership in a military alliance like NATO, as is the case for countries like Belgium and Luxembourg. Switzerland started out as a military alliance between independent cantons. However, the membership in such alliance decreases the independence of a country, making it dependent on its stronger allies. Several NATO members maintain conscription, so an alliance is not complementary with conscription.

Also, a wealthy small country could hire a professional mercenary army. This approach does, however, require wealth and men who are willing to hire on. Moreover, it required some means to control the mercenaries if they became unruly.

However, conscription creates numbers but not quality. Niccolò Machiavelli's attempts to raise a conscript army in Milan ended in catastrophe; the conscripts did not have adequate training or experience, and were awkward to perform drill and maneuvre. If the conscript army is trained only during the crisis, the limits on time and resources on training enable only rudimentary training; anything else is to be learnt on the battlefield. However, this can be avoided by peace-time conscription to train a large reserve usable in a crisis. The quality of the reserve must be maintained by steady refresher exercises. In several countries where conscription is in use, the length (and quality) of the training is virtually similar to that of professional armies.

The losses to conscript armies on the battlefield are often large, but waste of manpower is limited by the fact that the supply of able-bodied males in a nation is not inexhaustible. In addition, any government waging a prolonged war with conscripts will risk losing popular support and following loss of power. For a democratic government, this limits the use of conscript forces for wars that are fights for existence. Pursuing national interests or expeditionary wars may still necessitate a large professional army.


[edit] Personnel diversity
Perhaps the kind of people who most strongly want to be in the military are not always the only kind of people who are needed in it. Conscripts come from various backgrounds and might have differing opinions and views. A diverse group is arguably more likely to succeed at any task. Still, the frequently lower morale and experience of conscripts may make them less useful in actual combat situations. This has been witnessed in the Vietnam War and Soviet-Afghan War.

Personnel diversity might be bad for armies in some ways, by inhibiting communication and increasing social tension, but it also helps different people come together and realize the true nature of an all-inclusive society. For example, it helps them understand the problems of other classes, professions, cultures, and educational levels. Similar arguments have been presented in favor of desegregation in schools. However, in countries that already have desegregated schools (i.e. most of the western world) it is not clear why the armed forces would be more important in bringing different people together than the school system, or could accomplish this in ways in which the school system could not.


[edit] Conscript quality
The manpower quality of a conscript force is considered poor in many countries. However, in some countries with conscription, the personnel diversity of the conscript force is considered its greatest strength. Admittedly, there are persons who would not be employed by a professional force, but these are a minority, and can be discharged for medical reasons in extreme cases.

However, the conscript force may also receive the best of the youth which would never join a professional army. Many conscripts are from such social strata that they would have much more lucrative employment or would be studying, were they not obliged to serve. These persons provide talented manpower that can easily be trained for technical and leadership duties. As junior NCO and commissioned officer positions are filled with leadership-trained conscripts, the size and cost of the professional cadre is much smaller. As these ex-conscripts, as reservists, mature and lose their fighting fitness, they can be subsequently retrained and given emergency positions corresponding their civilian expertise. For example, a transport manager who is a reserve officer might serve as a battalion logistics chief during wartime.[3][4] The leadership-trained conscripts can also be recruited to the regular forces. The Israeli Defence Forces are based on conscription and its excellent performance is often explained by the quality of the manpower. However, as the tour of duty is three years, and as the nation lives in continuous threat of war, the military training is very thorough and can well be compared to that of the all-volunteer professional armies.

The worst problem is however that the training must be designed by the physical fitness and the learning ability of the least able of the youth. However, this can be at least partly avoided by differentiating the conscript training. Even the least able can usually fulfill important roles in relatively easy logistics duties, while the most able can be trained quite well as specialists.[5] In many cases the conscript servicemates may have social or societal problems, they may be criminals, bullies or drug abusers, or they may even be sociopaths. Allowing such persons to serve is problematic. They may corrode the capability of the unit, even endangering the safety of the others. Some countries have recognized this problem, and attempt to exclude the potential troublemakers even before they get to serve, using medical discharges, for example.[6] On the other hand, in some countries (like in Russia) the problems with this issue are extremely dire (see dedovschina). There is also the argument that if the problem can be classified as juvenile delinquency, then the military functions as a "men's school". By giving responsibility, youth development is induced, and adolescent-typical criminal behavior ceases.


[edit] Total war
Total war means harnessing all the nation for warfare. In that viewpoint, the citizens exist solely to support the nation, and citizens are nothing but resource supplies for the nation's war machinery. Peace can be seen as nothing short of preparation period for new war and repairing the damage and re-arming the armed forces. The conscription can be seen as the natural way to relate on men's role for the society: each and every able-bodied male is first and foremost a soldier and only secondarily a citizen.

This world view was quite common in the Western world from 1855 to 1945 (from Crimean War to the end of World War II). Some even consider that most European states were armies who had their own nations. While this view led into militarism and immense carnage and slaughter in both World Wars, it also created the civil society. Conscription was also seen as "school of men" which gives the young men the essential social and societal skills.

The sensibility of the total war viewpoint can be questionized today. While the industrialization created new means of production and factories to supply the armies with new weapons and machinery, the civilian population and the factories also contributed a viable target for bombing and warring on civilians as means of indirect approach. On the other hand, the globalisation has led in rapid deindustrialization of productive industry in the First World countries, leaving the societies devoid from means of production of the essentials (which can be produced at cheaper cost in underdeveloped countries). While this makes sense in the peacetime, First World countries are today in extremely precarious situation on self-sustenance and cannot stand a prolonged war. In that respect it makes also no sense to arm the whole nation and prepare for years of conflict, but rather to create small professional forces, which are quick to react and have light logistics, and which can run a decisive campaign in short period of time instead of getting stuck on years of war of attrition which has no winners.


[edit] Political and moral motives
Jean Jacques Rousseau argued vehemently against professional armies, feeling it was the right and privilege of every citizen to participate to the defense of the whole society and a mark of moral decline to leave this business to professionals. He based this view on the development of the Roman republic which came to an end at the same time as the Roman army changed from a conscript to professional force. The change to a professional force itself was a result of economic forces Rousseau did not consider.

Some ideologies and cultures, especially in the East, and those based on collectivism or statism, value the society and common good above the life of an individual. Just as cells form a body, the humans form a society, and the interest of the society overcomes the interests of the individual, including his freedom and human rights; cells must die that the human body can live. Those ideologies and world-views justify the state to force its members to protect itself and risk their lives and limbs for the common good. In states based on society-centered ideologies, world-views and religions, conscription is the natural way of raising the army. Able-bodied males are an essential part of the national war machinery for total war,

In the era of total war, the conscription is the only alternative for a small nation to build an army of credible strength without depending on alliances. This is particularly the case when the opposing state is significantly larger. In such a case, a voluntary force could not, regardless of its quality, stand against the sheer numbers of the opposing force. Israel, surrounded by much more numerous Arab nations, is a classic example of this situation.

The right of the state to conscript its citizens can be founded on Utilitarianist principles. Utilitarianism states that the army must never be used for a war of aggression but only to preserve the state. It also states that the occupation by a foreign country would include unbearable conditions, such as genocide or destruction of the local way of life. If these two requirements are fulfilled, the greatest good to the greatest number of people may be achieved by sacrificing a number of people and thus, these people, the reservists serving in the armed forces, should be willing to make this sacrifice out of altruism. In fact, even without accepting this, the moderate (1 – 10%) chance of dying compared to the prospect of living in an occupied country may be preferable. This view again assumes the individuals exist for the state and not that the state exists for its citizens' sake.

Conscription can give the conscripts a lasting patriotic view and readiness to die for the good of the whole. Such readiness should, according to many world-views (e.g. classic nationalism), be present in a virtuous citizen at all times, but through training, the readiness becomes a grim reality, not rhetoric. This may decrease the admiration of the military, but may also promote militarism and lead into readiness to use violence in everyday life to solve marital etc problems. On the other hand, the fact that every person understands that a war — any war — means that they themselves, friends, and relatives will be dying or at the least, facing mortal danger, decreases the willingness to enter an armed conflict. In practice, engaging a conscript force in an aggressive war for a prolonged period results in morale degradation both at home and on the front, testified by Afghanistan and Vietnam Wars. On the other hand, a professional army is usually composed mainly of the members of lower classes, making prolonged offensive wars easier.


[edit] Economics
In a very large war, (such as World War Two) raising a large enough volunteer military would require dramatic increases in taxes or budget deficits. In such cases conscription can have lower negative impact than the impact of these higher taxes and be more equitable. (Higher taxes would penalize those out of service much more than those in service.) Research into fiscal impacts of conscription in World War Two suggest a volunteer army raised to the same size would have had worse economic impact in terms of economic growth.