Draft

I think I've come up with a solution to a pile of the world's woes.

What we need is universal conscription; you know, a draft.

I bet that isn't something you'd expect to hear from a left-leaning, freedom-loving, liberal kinda guy. Let me explain in more detail before you click off to someplace else on the internet.

Our young people head off to school from the ages of 5 to 18. This used to be considered enough, but with shrinking job markets, it rarely is. Typically, kids head off to years of trades training, or college, or university after they finish their regular schooling.

I would suggest that between completion of grade 12, and any further schooling, that our young people be universally required to serve their country.

A key to this cunning plan is that this service should be truly, universal. None of that nonsense about deferments for married folks, or for parents, or for those not perfect physically. The only exceptions should be for those who are truly incapable of serving in any way. The system would need to be designed to be as immune from gaming as possible. Political influence, and family wealth should not be able to buy the conscript into either a cushier spot, or out of the system altogether.

For the majority, this should be military service, but not for all. When my wife's German cousin was required to do his service many years ago, there is no way he belonged in the army. He did his time working in a regular, civilian hospital. He was required to serve for a little longer.

This service should be done as far from home as possible, and with a minimal sort of wage. All needs must be met for the conscripts; food, shelter, training, clothing.

You might be recoiling in horror at the expense, but you shouldn't. Every one of those young people is already being fed, sheltered, and clothed.

Let's look at a couple of examples.

The USA currently produces about 23.3 million 18-year-olds per year. Let's say that 90% of these are able to perform service of some kind, and that half of those are suitable for military service.

Let's adopt the Austrian model. They are one of the few western countries to currently have conscription. Their young people are inducted for 6 months of training, and then placed into reserve status for the next 8 years (they go home and resume their lives, but can be called up in an emergency)

That means that a country the size of the USA would have 2.5 million draftee soldiers at any one time serving, and 2.5 million or so people doing other service.

Currently, the American military consist of 1.37 million men and women. This professional core would need to be re-purposed to become a training cadre for the young recruits, rather than as the nation's primary combat force. They would provide the officers and NCOs, rather than the riflemen. They would also occupy specialist roles that short-term recruits could not.

For a country the size of Canada, the numbers would be even more staggering. Our small population would be producing 250,000 military and 250,000 non-military conscripts every six months. Our current goal military strength is only about 59,000.

For any country, the 6-month mobilization of their youth seems incredible, and daunting, but it shouldn't.

Think of all the high schools in your area. Every kid in there is, in effect, conscripted into school. Nobody thinks anything of that. My suggested program would be somewhat similar to having every student spend an additional 6 months in school, except it wouldn't be in school.

There is a lot of moaning about how the current generation of young people has been spoiled by over protective parents. A stint in service would likely both eliminate any such tendencies, but likely also shut up the complaining from an older generation that was sparred any such service.

Suppose you had a small business, and had a choice between two job applicants. One had only finished high school, while a second had also served 6 months of service in the army. Based on nothing else, which would you hire? How about a grade 12 grad, or somebody who had also done 6 months of janitorial work in a care home?

If you are picking the same as I would, we are already in agreement as to the positive effects that such an experience would have on those people.

Would it hurt the conscripts in any way during normal times? I can't see how. They leave home, are sent someplace new to live, are taken care of, given a little money, and hang out with same-aged people in an adventure.

Could it hurt them in non-normal times; say during a time of military conflict? Here, you've got me. For those doing military training, it could easily cost them their lives.

I contend that isn't a bad thing. In a true emergency, such as the Second World War, it would mean that a country such as Canada would be able to recall up to 8 million trained individuals (500,000 per six month period who could be recalled along the Austrian model for up to 8 years). This is far more than would ever be required. In the USA, it would mean up to 80 million. In either case, that would be over 1/4 of the population.

In a lesser, and much more likely event, it would still be a good thing. There is altogether too much military adventuring these days. The reason that governments are able to get away with it is that the fighting and dying is all done by the country's professional forces. Under my system, it would be conscripts nearing the end of their training who would be sent, and if more were needed, then reservists from previous groups would be pulled from their lives and sent.

It would be much harder to get a nation's voters to accept sending people off to kill and die if they might be the voter's own kids, or might even be the voters themselves. That is also why it is necessary that the system be universal. I wonder if George W Bush would have been as keen to invade Iraq for no reason if either of his own twin daughters were likely to be sent off to fight.

Citizens, however, would be willing to support realistic and understandable military intervention. After 911, the citizens of the US were clamouring for action in Afghanistan, and likely would have done so even if citizen soldiers were put in peril. Canada, too, sent troops into that conflict and it was widely supported by the citizenry. It seemed important, and worth doing.

In the case of a military intervention overseas, it wouldn't be more people dying, just different ones. Far less regular soldiers would be put in peril. In their place, a random cross section of the nation would be doing a fair share of the suffering. As this would discourage that type of activity, it would mean less death overall.

So I say, draft them all, and put them to work. If they are not right for the army, put them into alternative service. Give them an adventure away from home. Then, if needed, they would serve in time of war.

They would not only be there to serve their country militarily, but to discourage their country's use of force.