Under What Circumstances Is Military Conscription Acceptable?

I've been working on a piece of fiction that includes conscription, so it's been on my brain lately and the above question occurred to me to ask you all.

To be clear, conscription is 

Conscription is the compulsory enlistment of people in some sort of national service, most often military service

And by compulsory, they mean if you refuse, you go to jail.  And by acceptable, I mean you supporting forcing other people into the military.

The way I see it there are five possible positions on the question

1. Conscription is acceptable any time the manpower needs of the US military require it. (Peacetime draft)

2. Conscription is acceptable during any war, foreign or domestic, where the manpower needs of the US military require it. (Vietnam, Korea)

3. Conscription is acceptable during any war, foreign or domestic, where the United States has been directly attacked. (World War 2)

4. Conscription is acceptable during any war where the United States has been directly invaded by a foreign military.

5. Conscription is unacceptable under any circumstances.

(I didn't include the Civil War on that list because I'm sure there's a wide range of opinions about where it would fall.)

As Ricochet's resident anarchist (Don't freak out!  I'm the good kind of anarchist!), I hold position #5.

 I consider conscription unacceptable under any circumstances.  I see it as a form of legalized enslavement.  I would not support it even if the United States were invaded by the Soviet Union.  

That is not to say I would not fight.  I most certainly would.  I just would not consider it acceptable to force others to fight. 

What if that would mean the end of the United States otherwise?  If things reached such a state that people would not fight to maintain its existence, then that means things are so bad that it does not deserve to continue.

  • Comment Filters
Contributor Comments
Member Comments
Comment Popularity

Comments :


Joined
Apr '11
Keith Doherty

tabula rasa

If the country is facing existential threat, I strongly believe at that point that government compulsion (as a duty of citizenship) to serve is appropriate.  My Dad was a draftee in WWII--it was the right thing. · 23 hours ago

Interesting to contemplate this point in the context of the Heinlein quote. How necessary was the draft in WWII? I guess it was needed, but didn't we have a huge volunteer force? To me it seems like thousands and thousands of people (including my godfather) had rushed to enlist after Pearl Harbor. TR, do you think your father would have been willing to enlist if he wasn't drafted?

Samuel Amaral
Joined
Oct '11
Samuel Amaral

I go with option 5.

Maybe I don't like my country, but I don't see myself either dying for it or being forced into dying for it.

Mel Foil
Joined
Jun '10
etoiledunord

Not having enough trained military members INCREASES the likelihood of going to war. It doesn't decrease it. And if you're not willing to be conscripted, call yourself a good resident--not a good citizen.

Charlotte
Joined
Apr '11
Charlotte

Is there a middle-ground position?

I personally have chosen not to join the armed services, either for a four-year (or however long) hitch or for a career. But if there was an existential threat to the United States, and there was a nationwide call to serve, I would sign up tomorrow. It seems like the military/government could get lots of takers in that category before moving on to coercion (drafting the truly unwilling).

Call it "strongly-encouraged volunteerism", maybe.

Mendel
Joined
Mar '11
Mendel

The only sensible use for conscription I see is in homeland defense (akin to point 5).  The state is allowed to take away our freedoms to protect our fellow citizens through the criminal code, so why shouldn't it be allowed to take away our freedom when our fellow citizens are threatened from an outside force?

Up until last year, Germany drafted all males aged 18 for 1 year of military service to guard against an invasion from the east.  However, none of these conscripts could be sent abroad to Afghanistan or any other active conflict; their use was strictly defensive.  I find that mix just right.

Of course, on a practical level, any serious attack on our homeland nowadays will be defended (and prevented) by highly sophisticated equipment that requires relatively few highly-trained personnel, making the point moot.

Mendel
Joined
Mar '11
Mendel
etoiledunord: Not having enough trained military members INCREASES the likelihood of going to war. It doesn't decrease it.

How is this so?  Most of our modern conflicts have been expeditionary wars which we could have chosen not to participate in.  Having a smaller army would have made the Iraq war, for instance, less likely--there wouldn't have been enough troops available with the war in Afghanistan occurring simultaneously.

And I doubt the threat from a major military power such as China depends on the number of our troops.  The majority of our military personnel belongs to the Army, but I see no scenario for a ground war with a major military anymore.

Mel Foil
Joined
Jun '10
etoiledunord

Mendel:

[...]

Of course, on a practical level, any serious attack on our homeland nowadays will be defended (and prevented) by highly sophisticated equipment that requires relatively few highly-trained personnel, making the point moot. · 2 minutes ago

The Chinese are busy trying to turn that strength into our greatest weakness. You can't depend on technology alone. We're not the only ones who understand how it works, and what can make it not work.

Byron Horatio
Joined
Jul '10
Byron Horatio
TerryW:  One of the problems in the US today is that not enough people have served in the military—look at the current and past 2 presidents.  For those of you who “say” you are serving or have served and speak out against the draft I bet you are NOT a combat arms type…most likely a support type person.  A draft would keep our military supplied with high caliber personnel who would do the job.  If they can cut it, we discharge them. 

Are you ex-military?  Just curious.  I have never met ONE active military member, combat veterans and support, who thought conscription was a good idea.  Why?  Because they'd be the unlucky ones put in charge of people who had fundamental contempt for the military and for their superiors.  It's hard enough managing people who have volunteered.  Also, I am in combat arms, and have nothing but contempt towards the idea of conscription.  

@ Mendel (#38)

I joined for love of country and out of hatred for the jihadist menace.  If pay was reduced to minimum wage, I would not leave.  I feel no similar sense of purpose in the civilian world. 

Mel Foil
Joined
Jun '10
etoiledunord

Mendel

etoiledunord: Not having enough trained military members INCREASES the likelihood of going to war. It doesn't decrease it.

How is this so?  Most of our modern conflicts have been expeditionary wars which we could have chosen not to participate in.  Having a smaller army would have made the Iraq war, for instance, less likely--there wouldn't have been enough troops available with the war in Afghanistan occurring simultaneously.

And I doubt the threat from a major military power such as China depends on the number of our troops.  The majority of our military personnel belongs to the Army, but I see no scenario for a ground war with a major military anymore. · 4 minutes ago

Why was Hitler not afraid of Great Britain, and their warnings to leave Poland alone? They talked big, but they had little to back it up.

Basil Fawlty
Joined
Mar '11
Basil Fawlty

I don't know how many other actual draftees there are out there on Ricochet, but I can tell you that the experience of swearing that you were joining the military without being coerced to do so was pretty silly. I also believe that abolishing the draft was the last thing politically that small government folks should want.  When there's the draft, you see the iron fist.  When there's no draft, you see only the largesse. 

Sisyphus
Joined
Jul '10
Sisyphus

TerryW: ...

 I can understand why those who think that draftees would not make good soldiers say this and that is because you don’t understand “LEADERSHIP” in its’ most basic form, which is lost in the business world.  ...

No, I know this because it is the consensus opinion of the hundreds of war fighters, support personnel, and veterans from all roles I have met in in a 30+ year career of supporting the military, liberals, conservatives, anarchists, and apolitical. Dogma is nice if one needs to motivate a draft force in boot camp and hard core combat duty, but that consensus says you cannot make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. Great leadership may raise a draft unit to very high levels, but the elite units are filled from volunteers within the military (who may have been drafted themselves) for a reason. 

VDH argues (Carnage and Culture, and others) that the draft army is better. That you get eruptions like Sherman's march through the South and Patton's march to Bastogne from men forced by an enemy to accept their draft and stand their place in the line.

Sisyphus
Joined
Jul '10
Sisyphus

Byron Horatio ...

I joined for love of country and out of hatred for the jihadist menace.  If pay was reduced to minimum wage, I would not leave.  I feel no similar sense of purpose in the civilian world.  · 20 minutes ago

Thank you for your service.


Joined
Dec '11
Guruforhire

[Ed.: Deleted for CoC violation.]

Edited on Jan 20 at 10:19pm
Mendel
Joined
Mar '11
Mendel

etoiledunord

Mendel

 etoiledunord:

Why was Hitler not afraid of Great Britain, and their warnings to leave Poland alone? They talked big, but they had little to back it up.

I agree that there is a need for power projection.  I will also admit that I am not an expert on warfare.  However, from my small understanding of modern weaponry, it seems that any conflict with a country like China (say, over Taiwan) would more likely involve sophisticated Naval and Air Force units, where the trend is toward less manpower and more technology.  I don't think having draftees would benefit our forces much in this type of situation.

Edited on Jan 20 at 4:17pm

Joined
Apr '11
NormD

The Heinlein position is untenable in modern war.

The purpose of a draft is to prepare soldiers before you need them.

If you are suddenly attacked you need a TRAINED military who knows where to go and what to do.  Saying you will sign up after we are attacked is just ignorant.

I think a lot of conservatives have fantasies about heading off into the woods and fighting off the bad guys from their cabin.  They are so clueless.  A modern ruthless military would run right over them and their family.

Edited on Jan 20 at 4:26pm
TucsonSean
Joined
Jun '10
TucsonSean

Since we are a nation, not just a collection of individuals, i say it is permissible under option 2 for sure, but also in peacetime in preparation for war. It is not involuntary servitude, it is conscription. Two similar but different things. Just as we can tax we can conscript.

Sisyphus
Joined
Jul '10
Sisyphus

NormD: The Heinlein position is untenable in modern war.

The purpose of a draft is to prepare soldiers before you need them.

If you are suddenly attacked you need a TRAINED military who knows where to go and what to do.  Saying you will sign up after we are attacked is just ignorant.

I think a lot of conservatives have fantasies about heading off into the woods and fighting off the bad guys from their cabin.  They are so clueless.  A modern ruthless military would run right over them and their family. 

That was true right up to August 6, 1945. Also happens to be the day America identified herself as the most ruthless war fighter. 

DocJay
Joined
Jul '11
DocJay

NormD the bad guys we might fight from our cabin won't be ruthless trained foreign military.

Michael Labeit
Joined
May '10
Michael Labeit

Fred, what kind of anarchist are you?


Joined
Dec '10
Alan Weick

The Constitution specifically authorizes Congress to "raise and support armies".  So, the question is under what circumstances should Congress institute conscription.  It seems to me that only under a declaration of war from Congress should a draft be instituted.  All the arguments about the draft being slavery are irrelevant.  Our social contract (the Constitution) makes it legal and our republican form of government legitimizes it.

Now, how that draft is constituted is a legitimate question and one where we've seen unwise policies instituted.  Draft deferments for college students comes to mind right away.  If it is a time of national emergency and Congress has declared war then all able bodied men should be subject to the draft. 

What I find fascinating is the concept expressed here of serving in the military as some kind of punishment. This is ironic when you think of the kerfuffle created by feminists and gays asserting that they have a right to serve!  It was never a right.  It was always considered a privilege.

This is another consequence of the disastrous Viet Nam war; the de-legitimization of national service.


Would you like to comment on this Conversation?

Become a Member for $3.67 a month.

Join the Conversation
Already a member? Sign In
Loading
Welcome Visitor

Already a Member?
Please Sign In

Become a Member to enjoy the full benefits of Ricochet:

Join Ricochet today!

Already a Member? Sign In