Would Mandatory National Service make the CF stronger?

[FastEddy]

The days of useful conscription for warm bodies are over.  War is a trade, and a damn complicated one.  The very last thing that we need is warm, untrained, unmotivated bodies.  The ability to draft conscription legislation in an emergency is useful, and the point of that would be to recall to the colours all of those who had prior military training, activate all reserve personnel, and provide legal means for selecting from the civilian population those individuals with key skills that are needed for the crisis at hand.  That could mean military control over medical resources and establishments, or simply personnel if the mission were overseas.  It could see telecommunications personnel (for hardware) or software experts (for viral attacks) to restore communications after terrorist action.  It could mean nationalization of heavy construction companies and equipment and drafting of applicable skilled operators, planners, managers etc to respond to a natural disaster.  It could likewise involve the drafting of select industrial planners, scientists and engineers to pursue crash development of materials deemed necessary to the national interests.
      What I don't see, is the need for 150,000 untrained 18-24year olds.  If all we need is someone to catch bullets that might otherwise hit a usefull soldier, we can still use the Senate!

I don't know, maybe I'm reading this wrong but it sounds a lot like the Old Pre U.S.S.R ERA in Russia.

As far of the Technical Advancement of Warfare, you sure didn't have to be a Rocket Science for the last three major engagements and obvious the same down the road. Just ask the families of the 2500 U.S Marines and Soldiers.

Your appraisal sounds a lot like an selfcentered elitist . All the high flying attitudes will never replace the simple good old, well equipped, well trained, well disciplined and patriotic Infantryman. You don,t need to have a three Degrees , a PhD and the body of a Greek God.

If our Armed Forces are not able to take the not so perfect specimens of mankind and shape him up in all respects, then maybe we should start hiring Mercenaries. And even if they can't be brought up to the rigorous standards of the Combat Arms, there are many other Trades they could be assigned to. These persons might also have a desire to serve. And Serve and Died in the pass they have.

 

[mainerjohnthomas]

I don't know, maybe I'm reading this wrong but it sounds a lot like the Old Pre U.S.S.R ERA in Russia.

As far of the Technical Advancement of Warfare, you sure didn't have to be a Rocket Science for the last three major engagements and obvious the same down the road. Just ask the families of the 2500 U.S Marines and Soldiers.

Your appraisal sounds a lot like an selfcentered elitist . All the high flying attitudes will never replace the simple good old, well equipped, well trained, well disciplined and patriotic Infantryman. You don,t need to have a three Degrees , a PhD and the body of a Greek God.

If our Armed Forces are not able to take the not so perfect specimens of mankind and shape him up in all respects, then maybe we should start hiring Mercenaries. And even if they can't be brought up to the rigorous standards of the Combat Arms, there are many other Trades they could be assigned to. These persons might also have a desire to serve. And Serve and Died in the pass they have.

      You have missed the point.  A good soldier does not need a PhD and the body of a Greek god, but he or she does need the will and desire to serve their country to the limit of their abilities.  We can and do take those with the heart and soul of a soldier and train them into whatever role they are best suited for, be it combat arms, or support trade.  But one of my WO's used to say, "I'd rather beat some sense into a pack of wolves, than some spine into a herd of sheep".  While the combat infantryman of today does not have to be a rocket scientist, he does have to be a self directing disciplined individual who is able to make, and live with split second decisions upon which dozens of lives will hang.  The private soldier today requires more initiative than was commonly allotted to even Sgts in pre-WWII armies.  If you think the qualities that make a good combat infantryman, able to walk the fine line our troops are trodding in Afghanistan today, are found in the average kid on our streets, take a good HARD look at the next few you pass.  This generation of Canadians boasts men and women as fine and noble as any nation has ever claimed, and from their ranks we draw our soldiers.  We also have a mass of utterly useless sheep whose finest service to the nation is paying taxes, as frequently even voting is beyond their abilities.  As far as mercenaries goes, any nation that is so contemptable as to be unable to raise its defenders from its own sons and daughters deserves the fate meted out to those who think that gold alone can buy their safety.

 

[L + W Infanteer]

Please correct me if I'm wrong...but I'm pretty sure Canada did not conscript in World War 2.

I think conscription is a horrible thing, for both those forced into combat and for those who volunteer and don't want to trust their life to someone who was forced into service.

I think this slogan I've seen on a t-shirt is somewhat related to this topic....

Canada drafts beer, not soldiers.

 

[FormerHorseGuard]

Conscription for Canadian Army during WW II see the War Museum link here http://www.civilization.ca/cwm/newspapers/canadawar/conscription_e.html
that mostly sums that  up and deals with the problems they had then.

I do not think in todays world of a highly trained army would conscripts worl out for the best in most cases.
If they  forced some one to train for 1 to 2 year period. That would get them thru recruit, basic and maybe first level of the trades training, then what would we have, a partially trained soldier and he/ she would be cut from the forces and money spent to train the replacement to the same skill level, then it would start all over in most cases. Cost factors would be high and return would be low.
Pro:
1) larger number of persons trained to the basic level and more subject to recall if required ( if there was a recall opition factored into the training)
2) lots of people to do the lower level duties on taskings when required
3) lots of warm bodies for parades and pr work
4) some might want to stay on after the term of service is done
i am sure you all could come up with more uses for the soldiers who are not going to be around after 1 to 2 years of service that would be a positive use of man power
Cons:
1) cost of training
2) where to house the extra bodies, not enough barrack space on all bases now to house those there now let alone the conscripts
3) how many  would come to the Forces if required after release?
4) cost of equiping such a short term

in my opinion it would be a waste of the few bucks the military gets for training and equipment to have Conscription used in Canada.
The goal of the CF should be recruiting some one who wants to make it a career and who wants to make a long term stay  in the Forces rather then recruit and train short timers. The cost in training a long term soldier benefits Canada in more ways then training a whole lot of short term half trained soldiers. You need more then 2 years to be any  good at msot trades. I am looking at 4 years of working everyday  to become a tradesperson in my career now. 2 Years of work just gets me my second set of exams and some more class training and I just want to build houses. So no to Conscripion in Canada

 

[George Wallace]

So....are you proposing something like this:

National Service of ten to twelve months for all 18 to 20 year olds.  They would have the opportunity on graduation from High School of serving in the Military, a Police Force, another Emergency Service like Fire or Ambulance, or in an Orderly/Nursing position in a Hospital or Care Facility.  That would cover all within that age group, healthy or handicapped, and include "Contentious Objectors" (who could work other than in the Military.)

For the Military, they would be brought in during the months of Sep and Oct and sent to St Jean and Borden for BMQ.  From there they would be sent to the Cbt Arms Units for their SQ and Trades Trg.  Then they would partake in a Div Level Exercise in Wainwright or Gagetown and be released at the end of Aug through Sep of the following year.  If they decided to 'volunteer' from there they would CT to the Reg Force and go directly onto further Trades Training in a Trade of their choice. 

That would not end the Volunteer System that we currently have, which would continue to function as it is.

 

[George Wallace]

Conscription is a popular topic in many circles.  Here is another discussion on it:

http://63.99.108.76/forums/index.php?showtopic=16745

 

[FastEddy]

Please correct me if I'm wrong...but I'm pretty sure Canada did not conscript in World War 2.

I think conscription is a horrible thing, for both those forced into combat and for those who volunteer and don't want to trust their life to someone who was forced into service.

I think this slogan I've seen on a t-shirt is somewhat related to this topic....

Canada drafts beer, not soldiers.

And what do you base your statement on, Volunteers would not trust theirs lives to a Draftee.

I find that statement derogatory to all the brave U.S. Servicemen & Women who died in Vietnam who were either Drafted or Volunteered.

If you've seen a lot of the T-Shirts you've described, then you are hanging out in all the wrong places.

Also, you might consider filling out your Profile.

 

[Roy Harding]

Please correct me if I'm wrong...but I'm pretty sure Canada did not conscript in World War 2.

I think conscription is a horrible thing, for both those forced into combat and for those who volunteer and don't want to trust their life to someone who was forced into service.

I think this slogan I've seen on a t-shirt is somewhat related to this topic....

Canada drafts beer, not soldiers.

Good Gawd, Lad.  What do you learn in school anymore?  Have you not heard of the Conscription Crisis, or Zombies?? 

If they aren't teaching you this history in school, then quit trolling the boards and do some RESEARCH.

 

[acclenticularis]

Please correct me if I'm wrong...but I'm pretty sure Canada did not conscript in World War 2.

I think conscription is a horrible thing, for both those forced into combat and for those who volunteer and don't want to trust their life to someone who was forced into service.

Never heard of 'conscription if necessary, but not necessarily conscription'?  Only one of the most famous lines uttered in Canadian history.  And then, of course it became necessary.  The conscription crisis of '44 does not ring a bell?  So what if only a few hundred saw action in the European theatre ... there was conscripion in WWII.

 

[Hayrick]

Well I thought I would add my 2 cents to this interesting topic.

I say no to conscription.  The only time I could see a need of it is in a time of crisis and being a last resort.

It was discussed earlier in the thread about incentives.  I thought a good incentive was the do X amount of service for X amount of tuition subsidized to a school of your choice.  This way you get motivated people that want to join to be able to afford an education.  Who knows, they may even decide to stay.

CHIMO!

 

[Tyson Fox]

Just wondering, I read an interesting article on the subject, and the cons of making it a policy were pretty weak. It seems to work well in Cuba, but I don't know much about that. It wouldn't be impossible to get out of it either, religion, disability, all the tests and such. Of course, I doubt it would be viable in reality, and especially in a peaceful time like now. Too many people would "fail" the fitness exams.

 

[George Wallace]

I read this article on High School Social Interaction and wonder if it applies here?

Meanwhile:

Would Mandatory National Service make the CF stronger?

Most Swedes support mandatory military service: poll

Mandatory service, but not necessarily military service

No more Mandatory Military Service in Lebanon

National Service






YeaH!  It has been done to death.

 

[MikeL]

and especially in a peaceful time like now.

It's peace full now is it, when did this happen  :

 

[SeanNewman]

By all accounts, what forced conscription does is water down the military in terms of every soldier not wanting to be there*, but in the big picture it tends to make the country better in the long-run because you end up with citizens who have a stronger sense of duty and morals, as well as caring more about the country because they have personally invested in it.  Further, anything to encourage fitness is great.

*Note* Mitigated somewhat by countries like Lithuania and others who keep their constricts separate from their volunteers (which is what I would highly recommend).  That way the troops who want to be there can still be part of front line units with high morale where every soldier knows he can trust the guy beside him, and the conscript-only units can fill the other roles.  I'm not saying they can't be Infantry, just that they wouldn't be the A Team.

Any attempt to mix volunteers with conscripts in the same section would be disastrous.

 

[GAP]

Strange that.....I couldn't tell one from the other......both were good soldiers......

And your experience is based on??......................

 

[SeanNewman]

And your experience is based on??......................

I was part of a fairly long cross-training exercise in fall 06 (when some of my Regimental brothers were doing real work) in Lithuania where we (Para Coy of 3 RCR) trained them as well as soldiers from Poland and Ukraine.

I was exposed quite a bit to the attitudes of both conscripts and reg force soldiers because I instructed several classes to them, and the difference was night and day.  The reg force soldiers were very similar to ours in that they would care about what you were teaching them because it was directly related to what they wanted to do in life.  Then I would instruct to one of the conscript platoons and was pretty much what teaching a modern high school class would be like; nobody cared, females twirled their hair as they looked out the window, and the males were being goofs. 

The content simply did not matter to them because they didn't ask to join, and they were just counting down the days until their couple years were up so they could get on with their life.

While this certainly does not represent the entire world, I do think it would closely parallel any peace time Army that has conscription.

I think the only time you would see conscripts genuinely trying hard and become good at what they do is if they felt the survival of their country was at stake, like a WW2 environment or present day Israel.

 

[GAP]

While Lithuania, Poland and Ukraine certainly does not represent the entire world, I do think it would closely parallel any peace time Army that has conscription.

Really? So your classroom experience with conscripts and volunteers is what you are basing this on. I'm basing my experience on real live soldiers in the field.

 

[SeanNewman]

While I was certainly not in Vietnam and make no attempts to comment on the actions of those drafted who saw and did more in their year than I have in my career, I find it hard to believe that (other than certain exceptions) a group on conscripts could out-perform (or equal) a group of soldiers who want to be in the Army.

I am more than willing to listen though.  I am basing my opinion on logic, but if your experiences have demonstrated to you that as a whole they can live up to Reg Force soldiers then I am completely willing to listen and take that into account.

The hurdle I am having a difficult time getting over is the part about someone who by his very nature does not want to be there performing as well as someone who does.  Again, I am not talking about exceptions but trends.

I am sure there were all sorts of cases of draftees in Veitnam rising to the challenge and doing some amazing things when lives were on the line, but to say that they did it as well as volunteers did would fundamentally shift my thoughts on the matter.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Since we have had this topic before I am shutting it down.

Milnet.Ca Staff

 

[George Wallace]

Let's put it this way.  You both have different experiences and different perspectives on this.  There are even more.  Most NATO countries, until recently, had conscript armies.  Every country's conscripts, like current day volunteer armies, were trained to different calibres than those of other nations.  Some were good.  Some were trash.  We have nineteen pages of this discussion already. http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/24424/post-8929.html#msg8929