• maporita@unilem.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    There are two main reasons to conscript citizens. The first, to fight wars, has largely faded into irrelevance (barring exceptions for those waging war, like Russia, or those defending their country, like Ukraine). For the most part wars are better fought by paid professionals.

    It’s the second type of conscription that I will discuss. Many governments promote a system of national service for reasons of social cohesion, (the so-called Scandinavian model). It has much to recommend it. It creates a shared experience in otherwise fragmented societies, breaking down barriers of class, race and gender. It can be used to instil the values of a country in its population. It builds respect for the armed forces, teaching civilians that their freedom ultimately depends on others’ willingness to kill and be killed. And it subjects a pampered population to a bracing dose of spartan clean living, away from iPads and alcopops.

    The problem is in the implementation. Social service should not be confined to the young. One of the biggest divides in society is generational, and national service only for the young would not change that. Moreover it would do many older folks a lot of good to learn the value of inclusion and diversity.

    • MigratingtoLemmy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      The day countries conscript both young and old, men and women and everyone in between equally, and guve everyone equal rights and responsibilities according to their capabilities, is when I’ll deem conscription as somewhat worth it. Being conscripted takes away years of your life, and for what?

    • masquenox@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      For the most part wars are better fought by paid professionals.

      That only goes for dirty wars that you have no good reason to fight.

      It has much to recommend it. It creates a shared experience in otherwise fragmented societies, breaking down barriers of class, race and gender.

      The US would like to disagree.

      It can be used to instil the values of a country in its population.

      In other words… nationalist brainwashing.

      And it subjects a pampered population

      Only a boomer could think this.

      • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        To you first point… are you really saying that professional troops are less effective than untrained conscripts who really don’t want to be there?

        Cuz that much at least is true.

        Ukraine might be justified- and it might be necessary and even right- to have conscription… but a professional army would have been much more effective, at least at the start of the war.

        • masquenox@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          are you really saying that professional troops are less effective than untrained conscripts who really don’t want to be there?

          Firstly… there is absolutely no rule that says conscripts have to be untrained, just like there’s no rule that says a conscript wouldn’t necessarily want to be there - but that’s irrelevant to the question at hand.

          More importantly, yes - a citizen army can be more effective than a professionalized one. Napoleon Bonaparte’s armies proved that to the world to such a degree that military theorists of the time literally thought the professional military obsolete. Of course, the problem with a citizen army is that you have to animate the citizenry with a cause that can actually be justified - kind of a difficult thing to do if you’re waging colonialist wars that only benefit the wealthy half-way around the world. Which is what a professional military is good for - that’s why the US didn’t experience the same level of revolt in the ranks during the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan as they did during the war on Vietnam.

          but a professional army would have been much more effective

          Ukraine did have a professional army at the start of the war - almost all countries do. Not even NATO would be able to defeat Russia with a purely professionalized force - that’s pure fantasy.