Mandatory Military Service?

[BadCompany]

Spin-off from another thread…

I think Canada should have one year of compulsory military service for all men and women between the ages of 17-24. There are just too many benefits to be had from having a year of military service, that I cannot see why we wouldn’t do it. And to be honest with you, I have never served in the military, and I consider that to be my biggest regret in life.

Important caveat: I would NEVER send any “conscripted soldier” to any war zone, or indeed, to any other country other than Canada. I am 100% against forcing a person to fight and die for his country. Giving up your life for your country is one of the noblest sacrifices a person can make, and those people are true heroes. But it is the ultimate sacrifice and no person should be forced into doing it. Our current and future battle missions and peacekeeping missions would be conducted by the “regular” branch of the service. If the conscripts want to move into that branch after their year of service, then great, but otherwise they are free to go on their merry way.

So what would the benefits be?

* Increased physical fitness for a sociery that is rapidly degenerating in this area. Reduce teenage obesity, increase cardio-vascular fitness, increase awareness on how to train and the benefits of healthy lifestyles and all that. If only 5% of the people who are whipped into shape because of their year of military service maintain that level of physical fitness for the rest of their lives it would still save the country billions in health care costs down the line. Cardio vascular diseases brought on by poor lifestyle choices are the biggest drain on our health care system. Reduce that, you reduce the cost to health care.

* A nation that has been trained in self-defense. How many classes are offered to women in self-defense? How many attacks against women could be averted/stopped if the women knew how to defend themselves?

* A nation that has been trained in first-aid. Think of all the heart-attacks in restaurants, or car accidents, or drownings in pools and lakes, where all kinds of people stand around not knowing what to do. What if EVERYONE knew what to do?

* A nation that has been trained in basic life skills, like car and truck repair, light mechanics, outdoor survival and so on.

* A nation that has been trained in weapons use. Not that I think that everyone should have access to a gun – I support gun control efforts – but how many accidental deaths, particularily amongst teenagers, could be avoided if people actually knew how to handle, load, and unload a gun?

* A large, trained, rapid-response team. Not for war, but for search and rescue, disasters, missing children, etc.. Heck, they could even be used just to clean up parks.

* Increased self-confidence for our teenage/young adult population which hopefully would lead to a reduction in suicides (I’m speculating here, I have no info one way or the other on this). Take some teenagers who don’t feel so good about themselves, get them physically active, teach them some confidence-building skills and more importantly get them to feel like they are part of a group/unit (as opposed to a gang).

* Increased contact with other Canadians. Spend six months of that one year of service in another area of the country. If you are from Quebec, the first six months are spent in Quebec, the next six in, say, Alberta. Or Nunavut. Or Newfoundland. And vice versa.

Lots of countries have compulsory military service (like Finland), so it’s not like we’re trying anything outrageous here. I think the benefits would be enormous for us, and I would really like to see it implemented…

[BadCompany]

Dis, I'm not sure your idea of mandatory miliary service for people applying for citizenship would work... I don't think you can take 40 year old fathers and mothers away from their families for a year, as it would cause too much hardship, in my opinion. For sure, anybody that falls into the 17-24 age group that I mentioned above would have to serve, but outside of that age group I think you run into too many "life" issues to make it compulsory... And what would you do if the person applying was, say, 55? Or even older? I guess you could make them serve in the "administrative" branch, but to me anyways that would kind of defeat the purpose of it all...

[Disgruntled70sHab]

badcompany said:

Spin-off from another thread…

I think Canada should have one year of compulsory military service for all men and women between the ages of 17-24. There are just too many benefits to be had from having a year of military service, that I cannot see why we wouldn’t do it. And to be honest with you, I have never served in the military, and I consider that to be my biggest regret in life.

There were several reasons I joined the military but the main reason was that I was 21 years old and living in a bedroom in my parents' house. AND I was manager of a casual clothing store in Ottawa at the time.

Best decision I ever made was putting the uniform on.

Important caveat: I would NEVER send any “conscripted soldier” to any war zone, or indeed, to any other country other than Canada. I am 100% against forcing a person to fight and die for his country. Giving up your life for your country is one of the noblest sacrifices a person can make, and those people are true heroes. But it is the ultimate sacrifice and no person should be forced into doing it. Our current and future battle missions and peacekeeping missions would be conducted by the “regular” branch of the service. If the conscripts want to move into that branch after their year of service, then great, but otherwise they are free to go on their merry way.

A very difficult sell to professional soldiers. However, if there were alternatives to the military, say a mandatory national service, it might be an easier sell to the general public. For instance, why not give the target personage the option of the following:

a. Military service: those opting for this would do so with the understanding that if your country needed you, you're going ... period!. However, if a person were be placed here because the other services "maxed out" lets say, then a "conscript" concession could be considered.

b. Police services: those opting for this choice understand that they will be bonded. However, the terms of their service may vary. For instance, if someone opts for this, they do so knowing that they would be assigned to police duties associated with wearing the uniform. They will not be placed in detective or SWAT services. These can be options after their mandatory service if the requirements are there.

c. Firefighting services: Those opting for this would be fully employed in the craft. Again, the option of staying on with the department would depend on the availability of jobs.

d. Border/Customs services: Those opting for this would be fully employed as customs officials.

So what would the benefits be?

* Increased physical fitness for a sociery that is rapidly degenerating in this area.

* A nation that has been trained in self-defense. How many classes are offered to women in self-defense? How many attacks against women could be averted/stopped if the women knew how to defend themselves?

* A nation that has been trained in first-aid. Think of all the heart-attacks in restaurants, or car accidents, or drownings in pools and lakes, where all kinds of people stand around not knowing what to do. What if EVERYONE knew what to do?

* A large, trained, rapid-response team. Not for war, but for search and rescue, disasters, missing children, etc.. Heck, they could even be used just to clean up parks.

* Increased self-confidence for our teenage/young adult population which hopefully would lead to a reduction in suicides (I’m speculating here, I have no info one way or the other on this). Take some teenagers who don’t feel so good about themselves, get them physically active, teach them some confidence-building skills and more importantly get them to feel like they are part of a group/unit (as opposed to a gang).

Very well stated. However ...

* Increased contact with other Canadians. Spend six months of that one year of service in another area of the country. If you are from Quebec, the first six months are spent in Quebec, the next six in, say, Alberta. Or Nunavut. Or Newfoundland. And vice versa.

... this is probably the most significant factor you the positives you've cited. This would expose Canadians to each other.

As well, I feel immigrants should not be exempted to national service either. What better way of introducing them to Canadian society than to expose them to this program, National Service? It would give them a solid base as to Canadian values and beliefs (though many exist).

Lots of countries have compulsory military service (like Finland), so it’s not like we’re trying anything outrageous here. I think the benefits would be enormous for us, and I would really like to see it implemented…

I wonder but would this mean reviewing our constitution? Would such an initiative be an infringement of personal rights?

Cheers.

[Disgruntled70sHab]

badcompany said:

Dis, I'm not sure your idea of mandatory miliary service for people applying for citizenship would work... I don't think you can take 40 year old fathers and mothers away from their families for a year, as it would cause too much hardship, in my opinion. For sure, anybody that falls into the 17-24 age group that I mentioned above would have to serve, but outside of that age group I think you run into too many "life" issues to make it compulsory... And what would you do if the person applying was, say, 55? Or even older? I guess you could make them serve in the "administrative" branch, but to me anyways that would kind of defeat the purpose of it all...

Very true, BC. Good point again.

I think there'd have to be stipulations to the military/national service initiative. However, I feel offspring shouldn't be omitted from this. Families immigrating to Canada would have to be in agreement of this if they wanted to live here.

But, then again, there would be exceptions to that as well. I know when I was living in Germany there was a mandatory national service as well. It consisted basically of what I posted above. 18 months in the police, fire department, armed services or border guards.

There are exceptions to those rules as well. If you're the 3rd son of a family, medical limitations and the like. I don't know all of the rules but like I said, exceptions have to be made at times.

I suspect there would be quite the reaction to legislation like this given the way the Canadian mindset is. Political suicide maybe? Hard to say.

Cheers.

[Polarice]

Many European Countries have mandatory Military Service, its not that unusual over there. I personally believe that being in the Military was one of the best things I ever did, mind you I wasn't in it as long as Dis was, but I feel honoured to have worn the uniform!!

I can only imagine what good it could do for so many people to be "forced" into some sort of service. Sometimes people just need a push into the right direction.

[Doc Holliday]

disgruntled70shab said:

I suspect there would be quite the reaction to legislation like this given the way the Canadian mindset is. Political suicide maybe? Hard to say.

I think different part of the country would react differently. Though personally I feel mandatory military service would be great, within certain parameters, I think that there would be quite a reaction in Quebec if that was to go... But like with everything, it always depend on how it is presented and implemented. I think most everyone would agree that the discipline, training and team work values acquired in a military training would do great for our young adults, but that support would melt like snow if kids are groomed in a rush to be pumped out overseas in life-threatening, dangerous missions...

[MC Habber]

docholliday said:

but that support would melt like snow if kids are groomed in a rush to be pumped out overseas in life-threatening, dangerous missions...

That would be one of my concerns. The Canadian military is already involved in political activities to keep the public at large from thinking about certain things the military does that we might react negatively to, to bolster the image of the military in Canada, to create political support for its missions, and potentially to prop up the government of the day. I don't mean to slight the military, but I think giving such an organization a year to "brainwash" (exaggeration for lack of a better word) every Canadian citizen could be a disaster. I think our society should be less militaristic, not more.

BC, you have a nice list of potential benefits, but is military service the only way to achieve them? Why can't we have mandatory first aid classes in high school, for example? If the goal is things like giving people certain skills and increasing their fitness, why should that also entail teaching them to kill, or more generally, immersing them in a mindset which says that military might can and should be used to impose the will of our government on other countries? (Note that I'm not suggesting that everyone in the military thinks this way, but if you look at the way the government+military operate, it's easy to see that people who serve in the military are more likely to eventually support that world view.)

[MC Habber]

badcompany said:

* A nation that has been trained in first-aid. Think of all the heart-attacks in restaurants, or car accidents, or drownings in pools and lakes, where all kinds of people stand around not knowing what to do. What if EVERYONE knew what to do?

This sounds nice, but does anyone know if it has worked out that way in countries that have mandatory military service?

[BadCompany]

a. Military service: those opting for this would do so with the understanding that if your country needed you, you're going ... period!. However, if a person were be placed here because the other services "maxed out" lets say, then a "conscript" concession could be considered.

I would strongly disagree with this. I think that this sort of arrangement might create a “peer pressure” kind of backlash against those who don’t opt for the more “manly” service. “Oh? You don’t want to fight eh? Want to hide in that other service, eh? Coward.”

I think there needs to be a VERY clear distinction between the conscripts and the regulars, and never the two shall meet… As Doc says, if it becomes seen as a back-door recruitment tool for unpopular wars then the general public will rebel against it, and rightly so in my opinion. Nobody should be forced into a war zone, either through law, or through peer pressure.

Give them one year of “non-military” military service, if you will, and after that year if a conscript decides to join the regular force, then they can do so out of their own free will, with the bonus to the army being that they are getting recruits with one year of military training already under their belt.

As well, I feel immigrants should not be exempted to national service either. What better way of introducing them to Canadian society than to expose them to this program, National Service? It would give them a solid base as to Canadian values and beliefs (though many exist).

Well again, I think you have to take age and family into consideration. An 18 year old immigrant, for sure… but a 45 year old with 3 kids to support? Won’t work.

[/quote]I wonder but would this mean reviewing our constitution? Would such an initiative be an infringement of personal rights? [/quote]

Almost certainly it would be an infringement on personal rights. You’re basically telling somebody to give up a year of their life. In a country like Canada this idea will never fly.

But I still think it’s a good one.

I think there'd have to be stipulations to the military/national service initiative. However, I feel offspring shouldn't be omitted from this. Families immigrating to Canada would have to be in agreement of this if they wanted to live here.

But, then again, there would be exceptions to that as well. I know when I was living in Germany there was a mandatory national service as well. It consisted basically of what I posted above. 18 months in the police, fire department, armed services or border guards.

There are exceptions to those rules as well. If you're the 3rd son of a family, medical limitations and the like. I don't know all of the rules but like I said, exceptions have to be made at times.

I’d really try to limit the exceptions, to be honest with you, though I imagine in extreme cases that will not be possible. I think that a lot of the current exceptions people think of, school, health, etc, can and should be worked around. Not physically able, or your handicapped? Well, who says you have to run the obstacle course? You can do administrative functions, cooking, transport, whatever. So instead of learning how to camp outdoors, you learn basic accounting, or typing, or whatever. Still important.

Similarily, many people cite being in university as an exemption. I still disagree. Doing your medical degree? One year of being a doctor in the conscript army then.

I suspect there would be quite the reaction to legislation like this given the way the Canadian mindset is. Political suicide maybe? Hard to say.

Way too controversial for any politician to even think about proposing.

That would be one of my concerns. The Canadian military is already involved in political activities to keep the public at large from thinking about certain things the military does that we might react negatively to, to bolster the image of the military in Canada, to create political support for its missions, and potentially to prop up the government of the day. I don't mean to slight the military, but I think giving such an organization a year to "brainwash" (exaggeration for lack of a better word) every Canadian citizen could be a disaster. I think our society should be less militaristic, not more.

It’s a legitimate concern, no doubt. Which is why I think it’s imperative that there be a clear distinction between the regular army and the conscript army. And by distinction, I mean in terms of philosophy as well. While the training might be “military-like”, I think the real goal – stated, no need to hide it – is to achieve all the benefits I listed above. Maybe instead of having “combat” training (lines of fire, battle plans and all that) they’d just have “military” training (conditioning, life skills, self-defense etc.).

There is no easy answer, and you are absolutely correct that there is a very real danger that it will become a military brainwashing tool (exaggeration for lack of a better word). But I think it can be overcome (as it apparently has been overcome in places like the Scandanavian countries).

BC, you have a nice list of potential benefits, but is military service the only way to achieve them? Why can't we have mandatory first aid classes in high school, for example? If the goal is things like giving people certain skills and increasing their fitness, why should that also entail teaching them to kill, or more generally, immersing them in a mindset which says that military might can and should be used to impose the will of our government on other countries? (Note that I'm not suggesting that everyone in the military thinks this way, but if you look at the way the government+military operate, it's easy to see that people who serve in the military are more likely to eventually support that world view.)

In a perfect world, yes, some of these things should be taught in schools. But the truth is our education system does not have the ability, nor the will, to impose boot-camp order on it’s kids. Teachers are overworked as it is. While a pretty good argument could be made that instead of funding my conscript army, that money should go into the education system, I would counter-argue that the education system will always lack the military “discipline” culture that can only be found in an army-like environment. Again, it doesn’t have to be a “combat” environment, and we don’t have to teach our conscripts how to bayonet a dummy if that’s the biggest issue, but I think that a lot of the “lifestyle” that comes from being a military man can only come from being, well, a military man. Discipline, self-confidence, sense of belonging, and so on.

I also think that a lot of the things I would want my conscripts to do – like spend six months in another part of the country – are just not condusive to an educational system. When do you do it? After graduation? Before university? What if they drop-out? How do you fit 5 hours of physical fitness training into a 7 hour school day? Do you pull kids out of schools to help in natural disaster or search and rescue operation? Some of the benefits could be achieved by schools, but not all.

This sounds nice, but does anyone know if it has worked out that way in countries that have mandatory military service?

That would make a great social sciences study… obesity rates and all that can be compared, nation-to-nation, but what about “survival following heart-attack” rates, and accident mortality rates, or bystander intervention rates? I wonder if anybody has ever looked at that…

I’ll have to prepare my study so I can pitch it to the government!

[MC Habber]

badcompany said:

There is no easy answer, and you are absolutely correct that there is a very real danger that it will become a military brainwashing tool (exaggeration for lack of a better word). But I think it can be overcome (as it apparently has been overcome in places like the Scandanavian countries).

It might be harder to overcome here because our government, military and intelligence service is (increasingly?) tied to the US.

military “discipline” culture

I'm not sure I like that. Some people see that kind of discipline as a last resort for the minority of people who need it. I'm not convinced it would be beneficial to the population at large. How many people would become suicidal or develop psychiatric disorders because they couldn't hack it or didn't fit in? Another smaller issue is that some might leave the country to avoid military service. I'm sure we'd hear about it making the "brain drain" worse.

[Disgruntled70sHab]

I got off work early today to complete some chores around the property. Since starting this my neighbour came over with a computer problem he couldn't solve. Now, 3 hours later ...

badcompany said:

a. Military service: those opting for this would do so with the understanding that if your country needed you, you're going ... period!. However, if a person were be placed here because the other services "maxed out" lets say, then a "conscript" concession could be considered.

I would strongly disagree with this. I think that this sort of arrangement might create a “peer pressure” kind of backlash against those who don’t opt for the more “manly” service. “Oh? You don’t want to fight eh? Want to hide in that other service, eh? Coward.”

This wouldn't be a tag if a national service program were implemented properly I think. Here's what I mean.

* Ensure those within the predetermined age bracket understand that they have to serve in one of the four services I cited earlier for a period of 18 months.

* Ensure they know they are free to choose between the four; however, there will be yearly quotas for each of the service. If one is maxed out, they would have to choose from the others that still have vacancies. If the military is the only one left and the person doesn't have any option because they are approaching the maximum age limit, then the terms of service for that person become different. This is the only distinction I would allow for military service as it would become mandatory instead of voluntary. No one would be labeled a "coward" because of the circumstance.

I think there needs to be a VERY clear distinction between the conscripts and the regulars, and never the two shall meet…

IMHO, this would never work. You would be creating a very clear distinction between the two where the conscripted side would no doubt be labeled by the professionals as such. I don't know if "cowards" is an accurate term, but I would guess there would resistance to one army with two sets of rules and two differing standards. It simply would not work IMHO.

As Doc says, if it becomes seen as a back-door recruitment tool for unpopular wars then the general public will rebel against it, and rightly so in my opinion. Nobody should be forced into a war zone, either through law, or through peer pressure.

The timing for such an initiative would be terrible right now. The Canadian public, while not suffering themselves, are war-weary IMHO.

Just the same, there's a chance that mandatory military service could be perceived like this regardless how its presented. It's why I believe mandatory national service would probably be an easier sell.

Give them one year of “non-military” military service, if you will, and after that year if a conscript decides to join the regular force, then they can do so out of their own free will, with the bonus to the army being that they are getting recruits with one year of military training already under their belt.

If I understand your approach, maybe mandatory service under the reserve force concept would work. This way, they're performing normal military duties; however, again, they'd have to have specific terms of service laid out for them. Under the reservist system, the military gives each soldier, sailor or airman the option whether or not they would be interested in serving in operational theatres of operation like Afghanistan. And, to their credit, there are a lot of reservists serving abroad on military operations, (God love 'em).

Well again, I think you have to take age and family into consideration. An 18 year old immigrant, for sure… but a 45 year old with 3 kids to support? Won’t work.

Right on ... this would be a call for Canadian Immigration.

Almost certainly it would be an infringement on personal rights. You’re basically telling somebody to give up a year of their life. In a country like Canada this idea will never fly.

But I still think it’s a good one.

Depends on how badly they want to live here when you think about it really.

I’d really try to limit the exceptions, to be honest with you, though I imagine in extreme cases that will not be possible. I think that a lot of the current exceptions people think of, school, health, etc, can and should be worked around. Not physically able, or your handicapped? Well, who says you have to run the obstacle course? You can do administrative functions, cooking, transport, whatever. So instead of learning how to camp outdoors, you learn basic accounting, or typing, or whatever. Still important.

This scenario would almost certainly create a "we and they" kind of scenario, which is something that destroys military formations. You can't say, "if-you're-overweight-we've-got-the-job-for-you." It compromises your effectiveness as a unit.

Similarily, many people cite being in university as an exemption. I still disagree. Doing your medical degree? One year of being a doctor in the conscript army then.

It might be possible to introduce something like the GI bill the Americans have if you choose to go to the military rather than another national service. It might be construed as discrimination by some, but could also be an excellent selling point too.

Way too controversial for any politician to even think about proposing.

Maybe ... maybe not. Depends on how it's marketed I think. Let's use the "national service" approach. Leave the military out of it for the time being. The only options would be firefighting, police and border services. All it would take would be for a publication like MacLean's to come up with the idea ... "why not add military service to it as another viable option?" It would be presented in a column, then picked up by news services and then debated in the Commons.

That's the back-door approach that might work, IMHO.

It’s a legitimate concern, no doubt. Which is why I think it’s imperative that there be a clear distinction between the regular army and the conscript army. And by distinction, I mean in terms of philosophy as well. While the training might be “military-like”, I think the real goal – stated, no need to hide it – is to achieve all the benefits I listed above. Maybe instead of having “combat” training (lines of fire, battle plans and all that) they’d just have “military” training (conditioning, life skills, self-defense etc.).

I understand but disagree once again. However, this might be an easier sell if it were to adapt the reservist/militia concept we have now. The option to go into combat would be on the soldier and not a given.

There is no easy answer, and you are absolutely correct that there is a very real danger that it will become a military brainwashing tool (exaggeration for lack of a better word). But I think it can be overcome (as it apparently has been overcome in places like the Scandanavian countries).

Brainwashing is an extreme as you admitted to. However, the "brainwashing" of basic training wears off eventually. Knowing the military isn't for everyone, those who don't adapt to the military way of life can move on. Those who adapt to the culture have the option of signing another contract.

While a pretty good argument could be made that instead of funding my conscript army, that money should go into the education system, I would counter-argue that the education system will always lack the military “discipline” culture that can only be found in an army-like environment. Again, it doesn’t have to be a “combat” environment, and we don’t have to teach our conscripts how to bayonet a dummy if that’s the biggest issue, but I think that a lot of the “lifestyle” that comes from being a military man can only come from being, well, a military man. Discipline, self-confidence, sense of belonging, and so on.

And bringing those qualities to the community with you when you decide to leave. Another benefit perhaps?

Cheers.

[mic]

Sorry, don't have time to read everything, but I just thought that considering that I did my military service in Europe, I would give my opinion.

First of all, it really is a matter of what and why you want to have a mandatory military service. I did my military service in Switzerland (mandatory), where it is done for two main reasons:
1. To back up neutrality policy.
2. To mix people from different backgrounds (both social and linguistic) together.

The result is that we have an army which is far from being operational (at least if you want to mobilize more than the professionals), and I am very sceptical about the social benefits of it (if you hate Swiss Germans, you'll continue to do that). Moreover, it is currently a very costly business: you have to include a fraction of salaries that are paid by the state, the other fraction which is paid by the employer (despite that the person doesn't work), social insurances, and the loss in terms of output (which is not negligeable, if you take your young, most productive people out of the economy for, say, one year), and of course material costs (which are larger with non-professionals).

Nevertheless, I should add two things: first, as I said, it's really a matter of what you want to do with your army. The Swiss type of system could be greatly improved if you didn't force people to learn how to hide in mountains, but how to provide population help in case of natural catastrophies, etc. (which is currently done, but not at a large scale). Second, it's more a matter of what it can bring to people. Some will get an important message out of it, some will learn discipline, while others will simply learn how to drink yourself drunk every week-end (and once during the week). This means that there is no clear general law telling you whether it is a good or bad thing.

I should also note that if your goal is national security, then don't go this way. I don't live in Switzerland currently, but if there ever was a war there, run as fast as you can. Notice that countries like France and Italy abandoned mandatory military service: too costly and not efficient enough.

As an aside, and again only for Switzerland: I don't think Switzerland has better stats than Canada for:
- Fitness (you play hockey)
- First-aid
- Basic life skills (you have to drive through deserted places and deal with bears!)
- Weapon use: each person who has done his service owns an assault rifle. And accidents occur regularly.
- Self-confidence: I reckon (but I am not sure) that Switzerland has one of the highest sucide rate in the world (with Japan I think).
- Contacts: I remember how much fun we had at the expence of the Swiss Germans.

But again, I am certainly not attacking the idea of mandatory military service. Rather, you have to clearly state your goals and go for them in an intelligent way; but you'll inevitably have trade-offs.

[Cranky]

Conscription? Hell NO, I wont go!

[MC Habber]

disgruntled70shab said:

Brainwashing is an extreme as you admitted to. However, the "brainwashing" of basic training wears off eventually. Knowing the military isn't for everyone, those who don't adapt to the military way of life can move on. Those who adapt to the culture have the option of signing another contract.

What I'm concerned about isn't the military way of life, it's the association of the individual with the military and its goals. It's not really "brainwashing" and doesn't even have to be sinister. People tend to adopt the goals of whatever organization and culture they are a part of: if you work in certain corporate positions, you're likely to see the goals of the company as aligned with your own; if you do post-graduate studies, then getting published in journals becomes important to you. Similarly, people in the military are likely to see the objectives of the military in a more positive light. The military is supposed to, ultimately, serve the people of the country. Unfortunately, perhaps like any large organization, it has its own objectives (including its self-preservation), and I don't think those objectives should be adopted as the objectives of the country. If the government pursues those objectives without regard for whether they are truly in the national interest, the people should vote the government out of power, rather than supporting them for their own sake.

You're point about "wearing off" is a good one. Will forcing people to adopt a lifestyle they don't want - for one year - and to learn skills they don't really care about actually produce a fitter, more skillfull population? Or will people quickly forget what they learned and return to old habits? This is why I think the "discipline" approach shouldn't be applied universally - a softer approach works better with some people, and some other people just can't be changed. You can lead a horse to water....

[MC Habber]

badcompany said:

In a perfect world, yes, some of these things should be taught in schools. But the truth is our education system does not have the ability, nor the will, to impose boot-camp order on it’s kids. Teachers are overworked as it is. While a pretty good argument could be made that instead of funding my conscript army, that money should go into the education system, I would counter-argue that the education system will always lack the military “discipline” culture that can only be found in an army-like environment. Again, it doesn’t have to be a “combat” environment, and we don’t have to teach our conscripts how to bayonet a dummy if that’s the biggest issue, but I think that a lot of the “lifestyle” that comes from being a military man can only come from being, well, a military man. Discipline, self-confidence, sense of belonging, and so on.

I also think that a lot of the things I would want my conscripts to do – like spend six months in another part of the country – are just not condusive to an educational system. When do you do it? After graduation? Before university? What if they drop-out? How do you fit 5 hours of physical fitness training into a 7 hour school day? Do you pull kids out of schools to help in natural disaster or search and rescue operation? Some of the benefits could be achieved by schools, but not all.

What about the boy scouts, or something like it? Make it for kids/adolescents and have it be mostly outside of school. No connection to the military, no depriving the workforce of anyone. Spending 6 consecutive months in another part of the country might not be possible (unless you set up exchange programs, which seems perfectly feasible), but people have 2 free months every summer from age 5 to age 18.

[Disgruntled70sHab]

Excellent post, mic! Thanks.

mic said:

Sorry, don't have time to read everything, but I just thought that considering that I did my military service in Europe, I would give my opinion.

First of all, it really is a matter of what and why you want to have a mandatory military service. I did my military service in Switzerland (mandatory), where it is done for two main reasons:
1. To back up neutrality policy.
2. To mix people from different backgrounds (both social and linguistic) together.

The result is that we have an army which is far from being operational (at least if you want to mobilize more than the professionals), and I am very sceptical about the social benefits of it (if you hate Swiss Germans, you'll continue to do that). Moreover, it is currently a very costly business: you have to include a fraction of salaries that are paid by the state, the other fraction which is paid by the employer (despite that the person doesn't work), social insurances, and the loss in terms of output (which is not negligeable, if you take your young, most productive people out of the economy for, say, one year), and of course material costs (which are larger with non-professionals).

Correct me if I'm wrong, but is it mandatory for Swiss folks to serve two weeks of the year? It's something I heard when I lived overseas but never really looked in to.

Nevertheless, I should add two things: first, as I said, it's really a matter of what you want to do with your army. The Swiss type of system could be greatly improved if you didn't force people to learn how to hide in mountains, but how to provide population help in case of natural catastrophies, etc. (which is currently done, but not at a large scale). Second, it's more a matter of what it can bring to people. Some will get an important message out of it, some will learn discipline, while others will simply learn how to drink yourself drunk every week-end (and once during the week). This means that there is no clear general law telling you whether it is a good or bad thing.

Like all armies, once their soldiers are trained there has to be something for them to do. If there are no domestic crises or disasters, then you have to have a clearly defined routine.

I should also note that if your goal is national security, then don't go this way. I don't live in Switzerland currently, but if there ever was a war there, run as fast as you can. Notice that countries like France and Italy abandoned mandatory military service: too costly and not efficient enough.

Interesting why France and Italy dropped their mandatory military service. Would it also have to do with public feedback maybe?

As an aside, and again only for Switzerland: I don't think Switzerland has better stats than Canada for:
- Weapon use: each person who has done his service owns an assault rifle. And accidents occur regularly.

Weapons-related accidents are fairly uncommon amongst the professional soldiers in Canada. You can be jailed (and rightly so) by simply saying, "... the weapon went off while I was cleaning it ..." Professionals know you never clean a loaded weapon.

However, with conscripts that might change.

- Contacts: I remember how much fun we had at the expence of the Swiss Germans.

Quite a few Newfoundlanders, Quebecers, Albertans, Ontarians, Acadians, et all in the Canadian service. Each make fun of the other every now and then but it's all bravado in the end.

But again, I am certainly not attacking the idea of mandatory military service. Rather, you have to clearly state your goals and go for them in an intelligent way; but you'll inevitably have trade-offs.

As with everything.

Thanks again, mic. I'd like to contribute a little more to you post but I'm bagged right now. Have a good one.

Cheers.

[mic]

disgruntled70shab said:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but is it mandatory for Swiss folks to serve two weeks of the year? It's something I heard when I lived overseas but never really looked in to.

You have your basic training which lasts 20 weeks for soldiers, 35ish for under-officer, and 50 for officiers (you move from one to other during your training normally). In addition, you go to a "repetition" course every year during three weeks until you are thirty (or until you have completed 360 days in the military if it is earlier). It used to be every two years until you were fourty. However, you can imagine the drop-out rate of people who have other jobs and tend not to be in shape anymore.

Like all armies, once their soldiers are trained there has to be something for them to do. If there are no domestic crises or disasters, then you have to have a clearly defined routine.

Yes. The issue in Switzerland is that it would be virtually impossible to obtain the approval for any kind of heavy intervention outside the country. Even peace-keeping operations are kept to a minimum (and forget about peace-making), and only recently have the soldiers involved in them been authorized to have weapons on duty.
However, there is no shortage of domestic catastrophies, with all the floodings and a storm once in a while.
Notice one very good argument in favour of military service (in some parts of Europe): you make sure that it doesn't fold in extremist hands.

Interesting why France and Italy dropped their mandatory military service. Would it also have to do with public feedback maybe?

Perhaps, although I don't see politically how this would be possible, considering that the only way to indicate your disatisfaction in these countries is to manifest (at least, in federal states, you can always try your local government and your representative). And to be frank, I can't remember the issue being too high on the agenda at the time. France had a one (or two?) year intensive program, which may really have been costly. You are in the army, aren't you? Well I can imagine that professional French (and Italian) soldiers would be somewhat disturbed to see money going to train people that will never ever be involved in action, while they (the professionals) are inadequatly equiped in Cote d'Ivoire or Iraq.

Weapons-related accidents are fairly uncommon amongst the professional soldiers in Canada. You can be jailed (and rightly so) by simply saying, "... the weapon went off while I was cleaning it ..." Professionals know you never clean a loaded weapon.

However, with conscripts that might change.

Actually, I wasn't speaking of these kinds of accident. Rather, I was saying that with 200'000+ light weapons present in most Swiss houses, you are bound to have disturbed people "trying" them from time on the street/family/etc. While there is the traditional "guns don't kill people, people do", I believe that the number of "accidents" is liked to the number of guns in circulation.

Quite a few Newfoundlanders, Quebecers, Albertans, Ontarians, Acadians, et all in the Canadian service. Each make fun of the other every now and then but it's all bravado in the end.

Again, this depends on how it is designed. I know that you are normally mixed in Switzerland; yet in my case, we were a group of 20ish French-speaking, in a company of 400 German-speaking. People divided along language line, not along class lines. However, the real problem is the duration of the service: you won't change you mind much in 20 weeks, whereas it might affect your opinions if you stay a year.

[Disgruntled70sHab]

mic said:

Yes. The issue in Switzerland is that it would be virtually impossible to obtain the approval for any kind of heavy intervention outside the country. Even peace-keeping operations are kept to a minimum (and forget about peace-making), and only recently have the soldiers involved in them been authorized to have weapons on duty.

Another way of protecting the integrity of Swiss neutrality maybe.

However, there is no shortage of domestic catastrophies, with all the floodings and a storm once in a while.

Military assistance in these areas can be very well received by the civilian population. It reminds them that there is an effective support system in place.

Notice one very good argument in favour of military service (in some parts of Europe): you make sure that it doesn't fold in extremist hands.

Sometimes all it takes is the visual image of a soldier in fighting order, or a police officer, to make people think of something else to do other than cause trouble.

Perhaps, although I don't see politically how this would be possible, considering that the only way to indicate your disatisfaction in these countries is to manifest (at least, in federal states, you can always try your local government and your representative). And to be frank, I can't remember the issue being too high on the agenda at the time. France had a one (or two?) year intensive program, which may really have been costly. You are in the army, aren't you? Well I can imagine that professional French (and Italian) soldiers would be somewhat disturbed to see money going to train people that will never ever be involved in action, while they (the professionals) are inadequatly equiped in Cote d'Ivoire or Iraq.

This is a good example of why armies have to be unified. Creating two forces where one side only performs selected duties, can create a "we and they" scenario, which would be doom to the rank and file of any military formation.

Actually, I wasn't speaking of these kinds of accident. Rather, I was saying that with 200'000+ light weapons present in most Swiss houses, you are bound to have disturbed people "trying" them from time on the street/family/etc. While there is the traditional "guns don't kill people, people do", I believe that the number of "accidents" is liked to the number of guns in circulation.

A very good point here. I have to backtrack for a second though. I said that weapons-related accidents were rare in the Canadian Forces. Well, that's not entirely true. We have misfires and weapons handling accidents here and there. But, they are reduced in number with more training.

And sometimes you can train all you want but people will be people. I have a buddy who was fined one month's pay for a misfire when he was in Rwanda in '94.

Quite a few Newfoundlanders, Quebecers, Albertans, Ontarians, Acadians, et all in the Canadian service. Each make fun of the other every now and then but it's all bravado in the end.

Again, this depends on how it is designed. I know that you are normally mixed in Switzerland; yet in my case, we were a group of 20ish French-speaking, in a company of 400 German-speaking. People divided along language line, not along class lines. However, the real problem is the duration of the service: you won't change you mind much in 20 weeks, whereas it might affect your opinions if you stay a year.

In this instance I can see how your group of 20-odd could from into a very strong team.

However, WRT length of service, I think you're right. If you only train 20 weeks and then go back to your job then your attitude would be much different if you were to serve a year or two.

As I say to some of my students here on the base, the military isn't for everyone. It's not only a job, but a lifestyle. There's no disgrace leaving the service if you simply don't like it. However, the ones who do well are those who adapt to the culture.

Great input, mic. Thanks!

Cheers.

[cigarviper]

Pardon me for being abrupt, but, no. No. No...and good God no.

[Skilly]

Countries with mandatory military service

Albania
Austria
Belarus
Bermuda
Brazil
Bulgaria
Chile
China (PRC)
Cyprus
Denmark
Egypt
Finland
Germany
Greece
Iran
Israel
Korea, South
Malaysia
Mexico
Norway
Poland
Russia
Serbia
Singapore
Sweden
Switzerland
Taiwan (ROC)
Turkey
Ukraine



In a great many of these countries women do not have to serve, but men do ....

Another interesting commonality of the countries is that they can be divided into two groups. Those who want to defend her borders at all costs (Korea, Israel, China, Iran, and to some extent Russia) and those who haven't fought a war and have no intention of fighting a war. I mean when did Finland ever fight a war? With the exception of a few there aren't that many example of mandatory military service actually working for the "good" of the people.

[Skilly]

badcompany said:

There is no easy answer, and you are absolutely correct that there is a very real danger that it will become a military brainwashing tool (exaggeration for lack of a better word). But I think it can be overcome (as it apparently has been overcome in places like the Scandanavian countries).

These are the same Scandanavian countries that limit peoples freedom of rights. For example, in Sweden you can be jailed indefinitely waiting for trial since their is no bail. No recourse either if you are innocent. They also can jail someone for 2 weeks without cause while they investigate. Mandatory military service can be done in countries were rights and freedoms are not put on the pedestal.

Where would the world be without conscription? Canada has never conscripted soldiers in peace time, and never will, but it was needed in WWI and WWII ... and it is a good thing for us that those brave men did go.

Easy for me to say I guess knowing I probably could never be conscripted (last of the family line and all that ...), but if our army is depleted and we are under attack what do we do ... roll over?

I am on the fence about this ... I do it if I was forced without reservation, and I once even tried to join the military (was told they were not recruiting - honest ), but our constitution gives us the freedom of choice and we can't just rip that up.

[Disgruntled70sHab]

Good research Skilly.

I can only comment on some experience I have with some of countries.

Cyprus
(1982) Both the Turks (north side of the island) and the Greeks have conscripts though there's major differences between them. I found the Cypirot Turks to be very professional soldiers. At their checkpoints, they'd walk up to the vehicle, saluted and took particulars. The Greeks would sometimes wave as you drove through their checkpoints.

Denmark
I served with the Danish battalion for more than 2 months while in Cyprus. Today, I am still in contact with two of those I served with back then. The first time we visited one of my friends in Denmark, he told us he was still serving in the Home Guard (I think that was what he called it). He liked it enough but unlike his UN days he is now a citizen soldier (1990). His father-in-law still has his rifle as well.

Germany
(1989/90) I had a few German friends go into the military as conscripts and while they liked the money (about DM 400/month) they didn't like the military lifestyle at all.

Greece
As I was saying, while the Turks were very professional about their duties, the Greeks seemed to be the opposite. We had a UN task that had to be done one day. We drove by the Greek checkpoint in the morning and the guard was lying in the shade made by his guard hut. We drove back later that morning and he had moved with the shade.

Israel
The Israelis I talked to hated their military service. I found the conscripts to be rude, confrontational and generally paranoid. Very easy to understand though, especially when there are other countries who want to see you wiped off the face of the map. I think there's a yearly mandatory service requirement there as well. Might explain why Isreal can mobilize their whole country for war in just a few hours.

Switzerland
Only met their citizen soldiers at the Nijmegan Marches in '87. But, I got the impression they wanted to get back to work. No offense to mic, but I found the Swiss border guards to be some of the most pompous professionals I ever had to deal with.

Another interesting commonality of the countries is that they can be divided into two groups. Those who want to defend her borders at all costs (Korea, Israel, China, Iran, and to some extent Russia) and those who haven't fought a war and have no intention of fighting a war. I mean when did Finland ever fight a war? With the exception of a few there aren't that many example of mandatory military service actually working for the "good" of the people.

It's in the best interests of countries like South Korea and Israel to have mandatory military service; their survival depends on it.

However, I really do see benefits to having mandatory national service similar to what the Germans do. Mic brought up some excellent points for sure. I think having a choice as to what service you wanted to serve in would be the way to go.

If the service you selected wasn't available you could go on a waiting list of sorts. Using the age bracket BC used, 17 to 24 years of age, a citizen could apply for their preference ahead of time. However, if the service they're waiting for has reached its "max" they they'd be placed in a service that has an opening. However, the terms of service would have to different because the individual had no choice.

I think a mandatory national service would work quite honestly. At least I think it would be better received than a mandatory military service.

Cheers.

[Skilly]

Dis,

It would be interesting to research and see why these countries have mandatory service. The Germans for instance, was that brought in the Prussia war? The Third Reich?

Be interesting to see what the local citizens say about the mandatory requirement as well and if they'd abolish it if given the opportunity.

I am neither for nor against the notion of mandatory service ... but I'd like to see examples of countries that use it and it made them better. Or countries that employ that wasn't out of necessity (war). Of the countries on the list there isn't one that I would say - gee I wish Canada was like that.

[habmeister]

mandatory and free country for me do not work. i am an entrepeneur, i'm sure i could have learned something from 1 year in the military, but it might also mean hanging out with a bunch of rednecks who want to talk about guns for a year. no frickin' way, my father wanted me to do it, but he was a blue collar labourer, and to him it was a good option.

thankfully i chose my own route in this free country. i'm sure the military is good for a good many men and women, but i don't think i would be one of them. i'm also sure that if i did serve for a year i probably would look back on it as something that was good for me, discipline, structure, organiztion will all be better in my life right now.

but i believe it was my choice, not my father, or country telling me i had to.

[HABsurd]

habmeister said:

mandatory and free country for me do not work. i am an entrepeneur, i'm sure i could have learned something from 1 year in the military, but it might also mean hanging out with a bunch of rednecks who want to talk about guns for a year. no frickin' way, my father wanted me to do it, but he was a blue collar labourer, and to him it was a good option.

thankfully i chose my own route in this free country. i'm sure the military is good for a good many men and women, but i don't think i would be one of them. i'm also sure that if i did serve for a year i probably would look back on it as something that was good for me, discipline, structure, organiztion will all be better in my life right now.

but i believe it was my choice, not my father, or country telling me i had to.

My history and perspective is almost identical to yours. My father, advised me to go into the military to acquire a "free" university education.

In fact, given Canada's abysmal rate of productivity I think what this country needs more is a mandatory stint of entrepreneurship from each citizen.

[franko]

Katimavik

[mic]

disgruntled70shab said:

Good research Skilly.

I can only comment on some experience I have with some of countries.

Cyprus
(1982) Both the Turks (north side of the island) and the Greeks have conscripts though there's major differences between them. I found the Cypirot Turks to be very professional soldiers. At their checkpoints, they'd walk up to the vehicle, saluted and took particulars. The Greeks would sometimes wave as you drove through their checkpoints.

Denmark
I served with the Danish battalion for more than 2 months while in Cyprus. Today, I am still in contact with two of those I served with back then. The first time we visited one of my friends in Denmark, he told us he was still serving in the Home Guard (I think that was what he called it). He liked it enough but unlike his UN days he is now a citizen soldier (1990). His father-in-law still has his rifle as well.

Germany
(1989/90) I had a few German friends go into the military as conscripts and while they liked the money (about DM 400/month) they didn't like the military lifestyle at all.

Greece
As I was saying, while the Turks were very professional about their duties, the Greeks seemed to be the opposite. We had a UN task that had to be done one day. We drove by the Greek checkpoint in the morning and the guard was lying in the shade made by his guard hut. We drove back later that morning and he had moved with the shade.

Israel
The Israelis I talked to hated their military service. I found the conscripts to be rude, confrontational and generally paranoid. Very easy to understand though, especially when there are other countries who want to see you wiped off the face of the map. I think there's a yearly mandatory service requirement there as well. Might explain why Isreal can mobilize their whole country for war in just a few hours.

Switzerland
Only met their citizen soldiers at the Nijmegan Marches in '87. But, I got the impression they wanted to get back to work. No offense to mic, but I found the Swiss border guards to be some of the most pompous professionals I ever had to deal with.

Another interesting commonality of the countries is that they can be divided into two groups. Those who want to defend her borders at all costs (Korea, Israel, China, Iran, and to some extent Russia) and those who haven't fought a war and have no intention of fighting a war. I mean when did Finland ever fight a war? With the exception of a few there aren't that many example of mandatory military service actually working for the "good" of the people.

It's in the best interests of countries like South Korea and Israel to have mandatory military service; their survival depends on it.

However, I really do see benefits to having mandatory national service similar to what the Germans do. Mic brought up some excellent points for sure. I think having a choice as to what service you wanted to serve in would be the way to go.

If the service you selected wasn't available you could go on a waiting list of sorts. Using the age bracket BC used, 17 to 24 years of age, a citizen could apply for their preference ahead of time. However, if the service they're waiting for has reached its "max" they they'd be placed in a service that has an opening. However, the terms of service would have to different because the individual had no choice.

I think a mandatory national service would work quite honestly. At least I think it would be better received than a mandatory military service.

Cheers.

Your last point is perfectly correct in my opinion. I have no real patriotic feeling, but I can perfectly understand the need and the advantages of a mandatory national service where military service would be one among other possibilities. And actually, I think that's where many countries with mandatory system are heading to: I know that more and more possibilities exist in Switzerland to replace your military service by some civil service. It goes from working in NGOs to working with elderly or disabled people, working for some local civil protection scheme, any kind of social work (in a broad sense). I guess that the sum of possibilities makes it very interesting, and it's always a good line in your resume. Moreover, if it increases the credibility of the army (which is becoming an issue in Switzerland, as newer generations begin to work in HR: being an under-officer doesn't open all doors anymore), then everybody benefits from it. I also know that in Germany, the choice is open between military and civil service.

I also think that it is extremely difficult to understand what military is all about; it's not really a job, it's something else. Even if I only did it in a country that didn't experience any war in the last century, I reckon that it is something particular. That's why I am of the opinion that it should be left to professionals, while leaving the door open to a broader choice of civil service (which would include military service).