Conscription: Duty or Disaster?
Would forcing the young to fight save the West?
“There are far too many younger Europeans of fighting age who do not believe in the societies that they’re being asked to kill or die for. And that is a huge problem that will not be solved by forcing them to bear arms.” -Rod Dreher
Mandatory Military Service
In this Spectrum Street Epistemology session, author, Danube Fellow, and public intellectual Rod Dreher was dropping truth bombs about mandatory military service. He put our mutual friend, Danube Fellow Calum Nicholson, in a difficult position. All of Calum’s arguments about conscription would hold if the moral core of Western society were solid. It’s not. It has been corroded by a sinister mix of factors, from years of indoctrination in public education to a change and dramatic rise in immigrant demographics to applied postmodernism and more.
I’m reminded of standing for the US flag. I don’t think there should be laws mandating that people stand for the flag during anthems. Nor do I think there should be laws against flag burning, as Trump is pushing. The problem is less that people don’t stand for the flag and more that people don’t understand the ideals of the US and why those ideals are worth standing—and dying—for. Mandating a show of respect for the flag should not be confused with patriotism, and so too conscription may fail to inspire loyalty if people don’t believe in the cause for which they’re fighting.
So too it is with conscription. Rod argued that conscription only works in a society that has “a general consensus about right and wrong and a sense of responsibility to the nation. That does not exist now in Western Europe.” He’s correct. Western Europeans and Americans don’t understand why their society is worth defending (despite the flood of people wishing to enter and enjoy the fruits of liberalism), and they certainly don’t understand why their societies are worth dying for. The fabric of society has corroded to such an extent that it’s unclear that conscription will do what proponents think it will do. That is, enable the nation to defend itself.
I think Rod is correct when he says, “There are very few people in Europe who would actually fight and risk death and killing others for Brussels.” This leads to a bevy of practical and logistical issues that Rod capitalizes upon, like “There are an immense number of Europeans who will not fight for their country. Do you really want them in the military?” and similarly, “An army of draftees is a less effective army.”
But what then is the solution? Calum is absolutely correct in that the West must defend itself, esp. in light of Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. But the Western populace is largely not willing to defend itself, but even if it were I rarely meet anyone in Europe who’s fired a gun. The immediate solution may be technological, solving a manpower shortage by drone warfare. But I digress.
Arguments For Conscription
As I understand them, there are three decent pro and con arguments re conscription. I’ll briefly note these and what I think are the best rebuttals.
National Defense: Conscription ensures a strong, ready military. It also deters threats (I’m thinking about Israel’s universal conscription). Broad and equal representation among classes and races may foster unity; it may also prepare a country for crises without relying on voluntary recruitment.
Rebuttal: As Rod noted, this is only true with morally homogenous societies. (My words, not his.) Also, it’s almost always the case that elites can get out of service. If this is accurate, then it will create division and resentment, not unity.
Civic Duty and Cohesion: Conscription may instill civic responsibility. It may also promote discipline and patriotism (like South Korea or Switzerland). Diverse groups uniting for a common purpose and rebuilding national identity, that’s America! Shared defense burdens may also deepen appreciation for core freedoms and reduce societal divides by creating commonalities.
Rebuttal: Again, this is true iff (iff = if and only if) the society is morally homogenous. Western societies are not morally homogenous so this argument fails.
Economic and Skill Benefits: Conscription trains youth in leadership and technical skills. This may boost employability. It reduces unemployment. It’s cost-effective compared to professional armies.
Rebuttal: I don’t have a good rebuttal. I think this is largely true.
Arguments Against Conscription
Personal Freedom Violation: Conscription, by definition, forces citizens into military service and thus violates autonomy. It disrupts education and careers, particularly for those in the lower classes.
Rebuttal: If the alternative is death and loss of the civilization, then disruption of careers and violation of some autonomy seems like a small price to pay.
Military Inefficiency: Conscription produces far less effective forces than professional militaries. Short-term conscripts lack motivation. (Although in Russia’s war with Ukraine, Russian soldiers stand behind Russian conscripts and shoot them if they don’t charge forward. Now that’s highly motivating!) Training reluctant recruits drains resources from volunteer soldiers. Modern warfare needs people who are highly skilled, as U.S. volunteer forces demonstrate.
Rebuttal: This is probably true. But if this price for this is preservation of the society, then again, this is a small price to pay.
Social and Psychological Costs: Conscription is stressful, particularly for a generation of kids in the West who believe they are constantly traumatized and victimized by “systems” of oppression. It also disrupts families and social support networks. If the conflict is perceived as unjust, I suspect that there would likely be an increased incidence of psychological stress and trauma.
Rebuttal: This is true. However, it is less an argument against conscription and more an argument to raise resilient youth. We have, of course, utterly failed on this account. (Years ago, one of my students complained to the department chair that they felt traumatized in my class when I asked if there were any drawbacks to diversity. I told my boss that if they’re traumatized by this, what will happen to them if something actually traumatizing occurs.)
Fin
My bottom line is that I’m torn on conscription, but lean more toward Rod’s position. Both Rod and Calum make solid arguments, but the problem begins before conscription: Helping people understand why certain values are worth valuing. Free Speech. Free Markets. Free people.
Conscription might make sense in principle, but if society has lost its moral anchor, force alone will not save it. Ultimately, however, my bottom line is: Would I send my son and daughter to fight in a war. The answer to that will almost always be an emphatic “Fuck No”. And perhaps because of that, more than anything else, I am against conscription.
American society has lost its way, abandoning agreed upon values like not only defending the Constitution and Bill of Rights but understanding that they are the glue of the Republic which education and academia are subverting and undermining. As a draftee in the Vietnam War I believe conscription is necessary because you understand the nation and its people much better. However, without agreed upon values the military draft would be counterproductive. What is chilling today is that about 75% to 80% of males are physically and mentally unfit for military service. The U.S. is definitely in decline in many ways led by incompetent and corrupt elected officials passing harmful legislation in Congress, primarily Democrats with some Republicans, who are an impediment to the nation.
I liked the column because I like the discussion, not your conclusion. I’m very glad we have been able to have a volunteer military for 50+ years. But I can imagine circumstances in which that may not work. Should a draft military be routine? No. Should it be planned for in case of emergency? Yes.