Mandatory Military Service a good idea or a bad one?

NAVY CS.........Well I was drafted and did not want to join the forces, but I think most of the time I was a fairly good infantry soldier who saw his fair share action along with several million other guys who were in the same boat. During this time every one had to do military service, and in the barracks you you could have a belted Earl on one side of your bed and a former convict on the other, yet we all got on and did our stint and we all became good friends. After 50 years I am still in contact with most of the survivors and it is still less than a year since our last get together and about 70 of the the 100 odd men from our old company turned up. During WW2 every one got drafted and they all mixed in together and they got on well. Now if the Draft was reintroduced would it be extended to women seeing as they want equal rights
 
its much easier for people to accept conscription in all out war...but in todays world...there arnt any. people arnt very patriotic anymore.
 
LeEnfield said:
NAVY CS.........Well I was drafted and did not want to join the forces, but I think most of the time I was a fairly good infantry soldier who saw his fair share action along with several million other guys who were in the same boat. During this time every one had to do military service, and in the barracks you you could have a belted Earl on one side of your bed and a former convict on the other, yet we all got on and did our stint and we all became good friends. After 50 years I am still in contact with most of the survivors and it is still less than a year since our last get together and about 70 of the the 100 odd men from our old company turned up. During WW2 every one got drafted and they all mixed in together and they got on well. Now if the Draft was reintroduced would it be extended to women seeing as they want equal rights
Click to expand...

If conscription were a way of life today all of our prospectives would be different I'm sure.

If we ever get to a point where a draft is needed I personally think the United States would soon after end its reign as the longest continuous single form of government the world has ever known. If Americans in the right amount of numbers do not feel compelled to serve and protect our freedoms then we would be at a point the level of personal freedoms we enjoy would no longer be worth the risk.

Currently we are not close to needing a draft - we still turn away more people than we enlist.
 
major liability said:
The quality of conscripts is always inferior to that of volunteers. Unless they are particularly self-motivated conscripts.

I'd say definitely no. Most of the people around my age (18) over here are simply unfit for service for psychological reasons. I don't think they could take it. And they'd resent their country for forcing them into it.

Save the draft for an emergency.
Click to expand...

I totally agree with ML.

I taught and counseled at Australia's army recruit training centre (where 5,000 new army recruits entered every year) and the significant number of coping problems from even volunteers who voluntarily entered into tough disciplined training would multiply a thousand fold from unwilling and compulsory recruits. A small number of conscripts may be surprised how good it is and become good soldiers but the problems and drama's that training staff would have to deal with (self harm threats, desertion, breakdowns) could see the training facility collapse (staff-recruit conflict, staff resignations / discharges).

You also have to remember that you need the staff and buildings and facilities and budget to cope with extra conscripted recruits. Like Australia, I don't think canada could sustain this but of course in a national emergency this is what we would do as an economic and national priority.
 
The question is this: is the quality of your conscript lower AFTER basic training than your volunteer?

There are a LOT of exceptions to the rule "one volunteer is worth three draftees."
 
the_13th_redneck said:
The question is this: is the quality of your conscript lower AFTER basic training than your volunteer?

There are a LOT of exceptions to the rule "one volunteer is worth three draftees."
Click to expand...

Aye, those exceptions are about 1 in 3 :)

Thinking about it, that may be too generous in todays world.
 
the_13th_redneck said:
The question is this: is the quality of your conscript lower AFTER basic training than your volunteer?

There are a LOT of exceptions to the rule "one volunteer is worth three draftees."
Click to expand...

Interestingly enough many commanders of Australian troops could see no difference between the volunteers and the National Servicemen in Vietnam, and often commented as such.
 
SHERMAN said:
its much easier for people to accept conscription in all out war...but in todays world...there arnt any. people arnt very patriotic anymore.
Click to expand...

100% agree.

The draft was unpopular in the Vietnam era, but when the crap hit the fan protecting your buddy became the #1 priority, and many, many acts of valor and heroism are traced back to draftees (conscripts). While no one wanted to go, once they were there they became the professionals their country needed - up until the politics and civilian populace stopped supporting them, and then they just became drunks and drug addicts. But for a time, it was a successful program, just as it was in Korea, WWII, and etc.

But these exceptional men were a prodigy of exceptional circumstances, where survival depended on the guy next to you, and his on you.

In a peacetime military, these exceptional circumstances (obviously) do not exist, and while some will find the military lifestyle enjoyable and educational, I feel that most would simply resent the stripping of their freedom to choose between service and not serving.

This resentment is detrimental to unit cohesiveness, the moral and trust and structure of command that makes us the greatest fighting force in the world.

With that said, allow me to put a different spin on it:

I do believe in mandatory service - to country. The military is NOT the only way to serve your country. So I say, enact mandatory service, but give them a choice.

Some may choose to work in a homeless soup kitchen. Or as a teacher. Or in the Veteran's Administration. Or a nursing home.

You get the point. Service to others above service to self is true service - be that military or otherwise.
 
Yes I agree with this too. Give them mandatory service for a year or two but soldiering isn't where all the needs are right now.

A good list will be as follows:
Teacher
Nursing Home
Foreign Service Volunteer (be a nurse in some far off place for a year or something)

I've done both teacher and I've also worked in a nursing home before. Basically jobs that are necessary, good and have a lack of people taking part.
 
Theoretically if your training programs are doing the job there should be no difference between a conscript that has passed basic and volunteer.

I am a big fan of the CMS idea if for no other reason than the social benefits to the community.
 
When I was drafted if you passed your medical then you would wind up in some Branch of the Armed forces. There were no ifs and and buts, at some point in your life you would wind up serving your country in some shape or form. The training was the same as the regular army chaps and fought along side them for better or worse, the only difference was they only paid the the people that were drafted into the army just half money they paid a regular soldier. That in my humble opinion was just taking the prevable P1ss. It did not matter what position you help in life or even if your daddy was the PM or an MP you went into the forces and did your two years. Now if you think that you get out of it by spending that two years in Jail or getting your self stuck in a military prison, well when you came out of either you would be recalled to do your two service and this would go on until you had done your two years. I knew one chap who took nearly four years to complete his two year stint pf military service
 
I agree if you are doing the same job with the same training then you should get the same money, to do any less would just create division.
 
AZ_Infantry said:
100% agree.

The draft was unpopular in the Vietnam era, but when the crap hit the fan protecting your buddy became the #1 priority, and many, many acts of valor and heroism are traced back to draftees (conscripts). While no one wanted to go, once they were there they became the professionals their country needed - up until the politics and civilian populace stopped supporting them, and then they just became drunks and drug addicts. But for a time, it was a successful program, just as it was in Korea, WWII, and etc.
Click to expand...

I believe that Australia's national service (conscription) scheme was excellent. When you were drafted it was for 3 years (1 year training, 2 years service) to be served within Australia. If you volunteered to go to Vietnam it was shortened to 2 years (1 year training, 1 year tour of duty), therefore it meant that all conscripts in Vietnam from Australia were there by choice. It's not often recognised within Australia as it hardly gives a very good anti-war message to say that the Nashos were in Vietnam by choice.
 
I know quite a few Nasho's (5 that I can think of quickly) who discovered that they actually liked being in the Green Machine, and stayed on for long and quite notable careers. One acquaintance ending up a Major another a WO I. None regretted their choice.

I'm sure that they all acquitted themselves quite professionally, and were at least the equal of any volunteer.
 
There was always a great motivator in the British Army when I was in it, you either learnt your trade quickly or you died in action. The only year that no British soldier was killed in action since the end of WW2 action was 1969. Mind you that is not to say that some died during training
 
Le - loved your story about your platoon commander - that took a lot of doing, for sure.

Generally, having served in national service times, I can vouch for the fact that most recruits did their stuff to the best of their abilities, without dragging their feet, even if they did grumble; you would not have recognised them from the regular army recruits. In fact on duty or on parade, there was no seperation and loads of conscripts made very good NC0s. I cannot say regarding criminals, because this was not available information, even to someone who maintained records. Of course, criminal behaviour whilst serving was fully recorded and published. ( Part Two Orders).
 
I agree with those above who found conscripts just as good as volunteers but not in relation to generation X, Y or whatever letter we're up to now.

What was true of "nashos" 30 plus years ago - or even in 1980's is definately not true of those born late 1980's plus. Their mentality, values, resilience, and (lack of) discipline equipts them less to be able to meet commitments and challenges that they do not voluntarily subscribe to. In the past, even if you were forced to do something you didn't want to, most just got on with it, coped fairly well, and lo and behold sometimes actually enjoyed that which they thought they never would - they just needed a push which the National Govt was happy to provide.

Today is different I would argue. If you have trained military recruits in the last five years, as I have, and have different observations I would like to know them.
 
Padre.............I have been back to my old Regiment a number of times in the last dozen years and have found all the lads younger versions of us. They are more dedicate to their job than we where, even though they still have that daft steak. Now if they can do it then so can the conscripts if the full weight of military disciple is used. In England they made a series about National Service and got about 50 tearaways and young convicts to do what we did in the 1950's. Now when they had got over the initial shock most of them settled down and even started to enjoy and some even signed on in the Army once the they finished the series. Yet there was a very small core who just could not take it and ran away, but there again the same thing happened all those years ago during our training.
 
Padre said:
I agree with those above who found conscripts just as good as volunteers but not in relation to generation X, Y or whatever letter we're up to now.

What was true of "nashos" 30 plus years ago - or even in 1980's is definately not true of those born late 1980's plus. Their mentality, values, resilience, and (lack of) discipline equipts them less to be able to meet commitments and challenges that they do not voluntarily subscribe to. In the past, even if you were forced to do something you didn't want to, most just got on with it, coped fairly well, and lo and behold sometimes actually enjoyed that which they thought they never would - they just needed a push which the National Govt was happy to provide.

Today is different I would argue. If you have trained military recruits in the last five years, as I have, and have different observations I would like to know them.
Click to expand...

Agreed, to an extent. I've just come back to commanding a rifle platoon after 2 training postings. I found often that it was the older recruits that were the better recruits, often this was due to them being retreads, but to a degree they would show up the younger diggers. Sure, issues like fitness plagued some of them, but then again, some of these young recruits were pretty unfit as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top