Would Mandatory National Service make the CF stronger?

[Goober]

... Have you not been reading the discussion?
...

Yes but I'm late in the discussion and I wanted to put my 2 cents in on the original topic. 

 

[elscotto937]

Personally, I would like to see a reward based military service, rather than a manditory one. One where there would be some extreme rewards for those who serve. For example, allow only those with former military service (Reg or Res) to be a federally elected official, or be promoted to the higher echelons of civil service. I would also require that everyone who works in DND have former military service. Therefore we could have soldiers who have done thier time working in jobs were they can put there experience to use. I know this does happen occasionnally, but it should be the rule, not the exception. 
Some have mentioned that the reason why we do not have enough recruits in the forces in the long enrollment and training periods... this is why the forces are recruting and training badly, in my humble opinion: We are recruting for all trades, we shouldn't be, at all... all pers enrolling in the ranks or as an officer should do the equivilant of thier first BE in the Artillery, armour, infantry, Combat engineers. Once that is completed they have the option of OTing any of the other trades, and if it is open the change is automatic, if they recommended to stay in the combat arms then they are promoted. At that time if they wish to release, they can join the reserves in any of thier trades. Finally, all reserve units must be re-roled to combat arms units with specific mission functions in the total forces.

Would any of this happen, no, because Canada as a whole has become too self-absorbed, average Canadians think they are better than americans, and are mostly repulsed by american support of thier military, so they turn thier backs on it. Canadians knowledge of thier history and thier military is embarrassing and is much more degrading to Canada, then the average americans ignorance of the world is to America.

I was all over the board on that one, but my arguements only come out logically at beer Five of a case of Keith's, and sadly I'm sober today. Thanks for your patience..

Scott

 

[Eric5]

I'm 16, and I am joining the Primary Reserve. (Just to give you a little background) I agree that something should be done about things like obeisity, but mandatory military or civil service is not the answer. Canada is a free nation, our citizens and military are loved around the world for the aid we provide. Why have a huge military if it isn't needed? I would never get rid of our military, or cut spending on it, but instead of trying to make more people join, why not get the people who have already joined and are now choosing to join better equipment? What is this I hear about buying subs that have leaks from the british, and having 40 year old helicoptors, etc. Think about Russia, they went into WWII with a massive number of people, but didn't give those people enough equipment (not enough bullets, or guns, improper clothing for the climate they were entering, etc.) And it was a slaughter. We have a small, but very well trained army, all we need is better equipment.

Now, as for benefits for the forces, we already have alot. Free schooling if you're in the reg. force, help in paying for schooling in the reserves, medical, dental, pensions, any moving that you are required to do is fully paid for, etc. But one thing that I do think should be changed is that only someone who has served in the military, and had actual overseas experience should be able to give the final decision on whether or not our boys and girls go to war. I do not trust Paul Martin to decide that, since he's been trying to be "Dubya's" best friend lately.

One last thing, and no offense to the people that supported this idea, but giving the right to vote to only the people who have service experience is the worst idea I have ever heard. That's controlling the vote. then only people who are of a somewhat like mind would be voting, and the government wouldn't represent the majority of the people. The reason why I am joining is because Canada is a free, multicultural country where everyones views, and opinions are accepted, and I want to do my part to protect that way of life. If you think that our whole system should be changed so that a few would control the changes that affect many, what are you protecting?

 

[Military Brat]

Making it mandatory for elected officials to serve in the military is ridiculous. Learning how to kill shouldn't be a requirement to serve the people. It wouldn't be a bad thing for the Minister of Defense, the Prime Minister, and the Veteran Affairs Minister (the ones who make decisions directly affecting the military. But what good does it do for a Minister of Natural Resources to have served time in the military?

Also, making it mandatory to serve in the combat arms would be a big blow for recruitment. There are a lot of people who would like to serve their country in the Armed Forces - just not in the combat arms. Very few people are cut out to carry 100lbs on their back for extended periods of time in the infantry. Support trades are just as (maybe even more) vital as combat arm trades.

 

[Jarnhamar]

How can you claim your country to be a "Free" country when it forces someone to do something against their will, such as join the military.

The free country of ours forces us to pay taxes. We all have to pay that new health care tax, who signed up for that? Were told how old we have to be to drink, smoke, have sex, drive a car.

But what good does it do for a Minister of Natural Resources to have served time in the military?

The military is all about juggling resources, especially when your given a job without the proper amount of resources to do the job but it still  needs to get done.  I know the point your trying to make but this was a pretty bad example.


I liked the idea of everyone serving int he military, even it it's a little stint in the reserves.  Canada doesn't have the mentality for it and it doesn't need to go past that. We would spend the next 300 years in court cases why such and such person can't be forced to join the army, how its against someones religious rights, now they are too fat to join and currently in a lawsuit with mcdonalds over making them fat.

It's fun to consider the pro's and con's but in reality your going to have better luck kicking a football to the moon than forcing kids who cry and throw tantrums because they piece of shit parents only bought them 5 $20 CDs at the mall and not all 7 that they wanted.

 

[elscotto937]

I agree Ghost it would never happen, but it's great to dream...
that being said Military Brat, I would sooner have a person with military experience as an elected official, soldiers, for the most part, have a way of breaking things down to a common sense level. From our government Canadians deserve explinations on decisions. I would sooner see the logic behind a bad decision then an arbitrary one. Bottom line Military Brat, the current situation in Canada is that most of the elected officials do not have any former service, and we can what an outstanding job they are doing. The proof, or lack there of, is in the pudding.

CSS and other trade have a very important role to play. But could Sgt in charge of the truckers, have been in the infantry for 16 years until his knees went bad, in charge of other truckers who spent 3 years learning to fight in the combat arms. Gives you a bit more options when the armoured escort is hit when when a convoy is ambushed.

Support trades are just as (maybe even more) vital as combat arm trades.

Where did you come from, are the cooks going to through hot soup at the enemy. We are all part of the team, I can't, definately not, fight without food, but you are putting the cart before the horse. All, I'm saying is that if someone is shooting at me I want to be able to trust that the guy beside me knows how to maintain and fire his weapon on my direction.

 

[Ex Ranger Instructor]

As a serving soldier myself, obviously I'm not someone who has a problem with the military.  But that said, I don't think I'd like to live in a society where everyone was expected to be a soldier.  We all piss and moan about the problems we have in Canada, but overall it's one of the best places to live on Earth, and that fact has been widely recognized.  Forcing people to serve as a matter of course, though an interesting theory, is, in my opinion fundamentally at odds with the basic values of our nation, which I believe are largely responsible for the fantastic standard of living that we currently enjoy.  To all those who say that serving in the military should be a prerequisite for x,y, or z, I say this: don't kid yourself.  I think there's a lot of self-aggrandizement going on here along the lines of "we're soldiers, we're better than people who aren't".  Have you seen the idiots we have in our army?  In every unit that I have ever served with, there are far more people that I would NOT want running my country than there are that I would be happy to have doing so.

I agree that a lot of people are dummies and that they don't vote intelligently.  People do a lot of dumb things.  But I don't think there's really much that can be done about that, and I certainly don't think that mandatory service, military or otherwise, is the answer.

 

[Kirkhill]

Quote from:wongskc

Quote from: ags281 on June 25, 2004, 04:48:28
To be fair to those who aren't military types, can't meet the CF medical standards, or simply want an alternative, this principle could extend to full-time service with a list of approved/credible NGO's (e.g. red cross, medecins sans frontieres, salvation army) either domestically or abroad... Having more Canadian citizens with an actual understanding of the REAL world would do wonders for our society too (those that spend time in the 3rd world especially would definately be unlikely to take Canadian citizenship for granted).

Basic principle is this: as a Canadian citizen, you have the option to contribute to the Canadian or international communities with either your time or your money. It just happens that if you contribute time you can gain valuable insight into the world around you, plus have an experience that you will carry with you for the rest of your life.


Completely agree 100%.  You outlined a line of thought that I have been musing over for a little while.  And the added advantage of having a population with real life experiences in all kinds of different environments is a compelling argument in itself for a system like this.

I agree with both of you. Couldn't express it better. 

One of the advantages of this would be promoting an outward view for Canadians.  Rather than navel gazing and picking at our own scabs, fretting about how we are being treated it would give Canada a greater sense of what it is, what it has and a greater sense of pride. 

The concept is as old as time, when domestic politics get divisive focus on an external enemy.

What Canadians could do is decide that the "enemy" is not another nation/race but the "situation" faced by others. 

And any who have seen my posts by now know that I do not want a "touchy-feely" army.  I still want an army that will kill when the case demands it, and when trying to solve "situations" such cases are likely to arise. If only to defend NGOs/Government Aid workers who are trying to help the starving and destitute in the face of opposition by their own governments.

But that sense of "doing", "helping" in a good cause, that would do more for National Pride and Canadian Unity than all the multi-cult ad campaigns ever devised.

Wasn't that the rationale behind the comments by those that said "they went up Vimy Ridge as Ontarians, Quebecers, Bluenosers and Herring Chokers, Stubble Jumpers and Cowboys (OK so they didn't say that, I paraphrase), but they came down as Canadians"?

 

[Gunnerlove]

Does anyone really think that pushing people into the military would benefit the country?
We can't afford to train our current troops let alone an influx in the tens of thousands.

Mandatory service is a way for nations to make their population do things they would rather not do. Also in a lot of scandinavian counties you get out of high school and go to school or public service for a few years. In both cases you get paid and paid for. We do not have the money. Norway does. That would be the difference in national oil policy at work.

We seem to have a recruiting crisis in our country. I say "seem" because the largest bottleneck in the system is CFRC, it takes far to long to get people into the forces. In any civilian organization thousands of vacancies would be unacceptable. However we overlook our HR department and their role in the problem.


I think it is cute to hear people talk about required service for federal politicians. Take a look around and ask yourself what they could take with them from the military. The ability to miss the big picture? The total inability to accept accountability? Sounds great. We need politicians on the outside to start cracking the whip on NDHQ not embrace its failings. A country run by "Pointy Heads" can you imagine? Spin the map could become a national sport.

 

[Guardian]

This point was made earlier in the tread, but I'll try to expand upon it.

Military / civil service may or may not produce a better citizen - you guys are debating that at length, and I'm not going to touch that one here. My question is, if we required mandatory service, would that produce good soldiers?

History would suggest no. If you compare volunteer and conscript armies throughout history, the professional volunteer militaries are far better - they fight harder, are more innovative, etc. Some reasons why:

1. Motivation. A volunteer, by the act of volunteering, is claiming a personal stake in the organization and its success. Conscripts, on the other hand, may feel coerced by the organization, and an "us-vs-them" mentality, on the part of the soldiers towards the chain of command, may result. Example: US troops in Vietnam - their discipline was very shabby.

2. Cohesion. A conscript army would consist overwhelmingly of a large pool of less motivated, disinterested conscripts held together and commanded by a small cadre of professional officers and NCOs. That is not the picture of a cohesive army.

3. Experience. Volunteers would be far more likely to choose to make a career of the military, and would be more inclined towards professional development. The majority of the military's personnel would have several years or more of experience, making for a smarter, harder organization. In contrast, a conscript army's average level of experience would be far lower because the vast number of conscripts who stay only for the length of their terms.

4. Turnover. A volunteer army, because its personnel, by and large, are in to stay of a long period of time, will deal with personnel leaving and coming in generally on an individual basis. A conscript army would have to induct and train huge numbers of conscripts, several times a year. Units would have to spend a significant fraction of their time orienting and training the large percentage of unit personnel who are raw recruits, while simultaneously saying goodbye to a similarly sized fraction of their personnel whose terms are ending (and who are the most experienced conscripts!) A unit like this would have a much more difficult time reaching combat effectiveness. Alternatively, the army could form a new unit with every draft, train up the unit, use it, and then isband it as all its troops' terms expire; however, continually reforming and disbanding units would not only be a massive organizational headache, but would not allow individual units to build any traditions, history, or esprit de corps.

5. Technical expertise. Equipment and tactics are continually becoming more complex. A professional military, with people staying for longer periods of time, would find it far easier to grasp and command the intricacies of modern warfare. A conscript army would never be fully trained due to turnover, and its terms of service might be too short to fully train on modern equipment. 

I could go on, but I've made my point. Thoughts?

 

[Gunnerlove]

I agree that turnover would be a huge burden. With 4 year stints you would lose 25% of your troops every year. I wonder if anyone out there has the figures for what it costs to train lets say, the four combat arms troops to a useful level.

It would make more sense to spend the money on retention. Why train people who are going to quit?

I think that retention is just as if not more important than recruiting, and both are lacking right now.

 

[pbi]

You're talking about conscription, which has historically been political dynamite in this country, particularly in Quebec where anti-consciption rioters were shot by troops in WWI. No Canadian government would willingly raise this ghost again unless they were confronted by another WWII-type crisis. As well, conscription usually produces the wrong kind of Army; a mass of indifferently trained troops whose skills immediately begin to fade after their service is over, a diluted and unpopular NCO cadre (with officers often assuming too many NCO functions, as in the Norwegian Army which has no professional NCOs), and a professional officer corps that is far, FAR more distant from its troops than is the case in a smaller, long-service professional Army. The US Army in the period of the draft (around Vietnam) is a good example. Since they went to a volunteer Army post Vietnam, they are much better.(Although they are facing serious recruiting and retention problems) Conscript armies lack flexibility and are usually  no match for professional forces except perhaps in home defense, where the drive to defend the homeland takes over.

What we need to serve our foreign policy is a hard-hitting, mobile, flexible and lethal force (both Reg and Res). Conscripted armies don't give you that. Conscription gives you a big, blunt instrument. As well, contrary to misconception, a conscripted Army is not all that cheap (if you consider the total cost to the military and to the nation). Sweden, Norway and Switzerland all spend very high proportions of their national budgets on defence, and none of them have an Army that is of any significant use whatsoever beyond its own borders. Several European nations, such as France and Germany, are moving away from conscription to greater or total professional manning.

I am against conscription, but all for carefully and gradually increased recruit intake into a professional force (it's not that we can't attract them-we can and do-its that we don't have the capacity to enroll, train and retain them. We actually turn people away because of these problems)  BTW the Canadian Army's definition of "professional" includes both Reg and Res, Officer, WO and NCO. Cheers.

 

[SHARP WO]

Should Canada like other smaller populated countires move to a National Mandatory period of Service?

SHARP WO

 

[Horse_Soldier]

It's a moot point.  Canada will never institute national service.  It's just not in our national culture.  Other western nations with long traditions of national service are phasing it out anyways.  It may be a good way to smarten-up a certain segment of our youth, but do we really want to rely on involuntary soldiers in a crunch?  Not that our governments could ever get it right anyways - just look at the mess our governments made of conscription in both world wars, when there was a pressing need for cannon fodder - er, soldiers. :blotto: 

 

[X Royal]

Horse_Soldier - Good points.
Just to add a few of my own.
1. Unmotivated conscripts who do not want to be there would be a waste of money and an exercise in babysiting for the nco's.
2. In Cyprus I seen the level of the conscripts motivation. One side motivated only by fear the other not motivated at all.

 

[scm77]

You should hear some of the people complaining about having to do 40 hours of community service to graduate highschool (in Ontario).  You can get it done in a few weekends, but people complain like it's the end of the world.  I can't imagine what it would be like if they were forced to be in the military and possibly be in harms way.

 

[Observer23]

Ref: Should Canada like other smaller populated countries move to a National Mandatory period of Service?

With citizenship as a birthright, it does not foster civil responsibility.  This is reflected in our election turnouts for all level of governments.  We as a nation have never had to stand up and protect our home as a whole (we haven't a border skirmish since how many 100plus years?).  I think that this is an excellent way to instill some sense of ownership in their country.  It would also aid in unifying the country in common causes through common experience.  There really isn't a sense identity across the country because we are segregated by geography, culture (heritage), and economic focus.  There is no common bond.  You see this contemptuous attitude as people demand more from their governments without any concern of long-term impact, how it effects everyone else, and the common good.  With mandatory service, we might just instill a sense of true pride in ourselves.

We would have to establish a clearly defined mandate for those serving during their mandatory commitment.  These soldiers would be used in domestic operations (Floods and Ice storm) and could easily be rapidly deployed.  For those that can be identified as trust worthy can be brought out to back fill Pte positions in D & S Platoons or Rifleman positions in the rifle coys.  Establishing a mandate would go a long way to determine a real purpose for these people instead of employing them as garbage sweep attendants back at the barracks (simply for sake of employment).  There has to be some value to the country for them showing up.

What would the terms of service be? 3 yrs full service, 1-2 years full service followed by a stint in the reserve.  How about 5 yr service in the reserve?  Any reserve commitment would allow us to train them while they were still in school and minimize any impact for those with a career path or goal in mind.  This would also provide a great proving ground for our future leaders to be identified (excellent screening process).

I'll throw this in the works since I am here.  If we have mandatory service then we may wish to consider a Canadian Foreign Legion for those wishing to immigrate to Canada as the price of citizenship.

 

[MdB]

For one thing, that doesn't mean conscription. National Service is not conscription, because it just isn't the same purpose. But, I know most of people would misunderstand and not make the difference anyway, unless a certain wide public discussion is done.

What I see is Canada doesn't have a war army, but a peace one. IF the Government commit CF members to an operation, it will be either for peacekeeping, or multilateral operation. We aren't talking about an all out war and invasive one.

I think we could have some benefit from a National Service. But, we don't have that culture at all, so I believe that it won't happen until we have a war that would mobilize the entire nation.

Still, I would give some of my thoughts on that. Having lived in Germany, I tasted some of European and German realities and opinions. In that country, there's still a mandatory 10-months long service after high school. You have to decide wheter it will be social or military service. It only for men, but I think women should have that choice too to do social service.

In that view, I think it's kind of best of both worlds. For those who have no interest whatsoever in the military have an exit. For everyone, it's a social education, how it's important to help to stick together, to know that we aren't alone in our appartment or house. We form a society and have social responsabilities and not only rights.

It teaches responsabilities and not only rights. You have to earn your rights and not only receive them without any efforts.
That's what's about.

The other side is a sociological matter, about the link between the civil and military society. When a lot of people have to get through a service, it's exposed to those realities and have a better, if not keener, idea of what our Armed Forces are about. I'll end with a touch of history. As I read, and anyone feel free to correct me, the Romans lost the link with their military when it became professional and no more mandatory to do a service. It became them and us for most of the population and that was one of the big reason why their army lost their legitimity and manpower. It became as well a political instrument manipulated by opposing parties and their purpose was perveted and not anymore for nation preservation, but for population(s) control. The idea to keep is that this mandatory service give the population a keen sense of the nation, of the society and of the bond between a society members.

I would be for a civil/military mandatory service, but how it would be accepted is another question.

 

[SHARP WO]

Here is another view on a segment of national service.

The Netherlands used to base service on how good a person was at school. If a student had test scores that were good enough to merit college or university they would be exempt from national service or if you worked as a civil servant, ie garbage man or police officer.

I think Canada could have the same policy, it could help so that you see less people on welfare.

SHARP WO

 

[Horse_Soldier]

Being an unreconstucted cynic (that's what you get for living in Ottawa for 15 years and working for the Feds :dontpanic, I could probably stop this discussion right now by simply pointing out that compulsory service, whether military or civilian would not survive a challenge under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.