The continued need for military conscription across the world needs to be more thoroughly questioned. Though a large number of armies (including some of the strongest in the world) no longer draft individuals into service, a majority of the world’s countries still retain some form of conscription. It thus becomes necessary to evaluate the soundness of many of these plans, especially since, given their nature, all forms of military conscription at some point must bring about the values of nationalism and freedom into conflict.
The arguments for conscription are basic and natural. It makes sense, after all, that governments should be able to call upon their citizens to serve their country. Especially in cases of dire need, such as a direct invasion, the requirement that a citizen serve a mandatory term in the military would appear to ring true. From that perspective mandatory military service is justified.
But that is not reality today. Very few countries or nations can claim to be under direct threat constantly from a foreign invader. For a vast majority of the world, threats are no longer those of the direct military kind. Thus, the case for mandatory military service is impossible to make.
Even in countries with a direct threat today, conscription can only at best be considered an absolute last resort. After all, professional armies tend to do better in combat than armies comprised of individuals who serve for less than two years, especially given the length of training necessary to have effective soldiers. Thus, it is far better to have an all-volunteer force for that simple reason than to have a conscripted army, even in times of direct threat.
As a result, it is difficult to justify conscription. This relic of the past should be abandoned posthaste.
