Compulsory Military Service

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Hazardous Harry**

Link: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/feb/27/israel-ultra-orthodox-jews-haredi-exemption

Israel's ultra-orthodox Jews have a duty to serve their country
Annulling the Haredi exemption from national service has ignited civic tensions but it is for the long-term good of Israeli society

The annulment of the so-called Tal Law exempting ultra-orthodox seminary students from conscription to the Israeli Defence Force (IDF) is threatening to engulf Israeli society in yet another internal imbroglio. Secular-religious relations are barely below boiling point at the best of times, and the latest high-court ruling threatens to see the cauldron bubble over for months to come.

Yeshiva (seminary) students have been exempt from national service since the earliest days of the state, after Israel's first prime minister, David Ben-Gurion, struck an ill-fated deal with the Haredi community, allowing 400 full-time scholars to remain in learning rather than take up arms to defend the country. This 400-man ceiling was lifted in 1977, ushering in a decades-long stand-off between those on either side of the secular-religious divide.

Love it or hate it, the IDF is critical to the survival of the Israeli state in its current form – hence most mainstream Israelis willingly send their sons and daughters off to complete their compulsory national service when they turn 18. In their eyes, the army should be the great leveller for Israeli society – rich, poor, tall, short: all know their duty to the state, and all expect their fellow citizens to pull their weight.

But to a significant group of Israeli Jews – the million-strong Haredi community – serving their country in either a military or vocational capacity is of scant interest or importance. And, thanks to their political clout in Israel's fragile system of proportional representation, when the Haredim want things their way, they invariably come out on top.

From taking outrageous sums out of governmental coffers to fund religious schooling to pressurising state-run bus companies to enforce illegal gender-segregation on their routes, the ultra-orthodox community has been wreaking havoc on civic Israeli society for years – and the problem is only getting worse.

Rightwing Israeli nationalists regularly entreat their government to deal with the "ticking time bomb" of Israeli-Arab population growth, fearful that the Zionist project will collapse in on itself if demographic shifts result in more non-Jewish citizens than Jews. As unpalatable as such rhetoric is, it also assumes that if only the majority of the country was Jewish, then all would be well in Israeli society.

Bitter experience with the unwieldy Haredi community shows this is far from the case, and the annulment of the Tal Law puts the issue firmly at the forefront of the national consciousness once more.

The massive Haredi birth rate sustains the Jewish element of the population. It also means that the proportion of Israel's population who are ultra-orthodox has rocketed to more than 10%, with the vast majority of Haredi males going into yeshiva learning rather than completing their national service. Full-time Torah study used to be the preserve of only the most talented and able-minded scholars, while the rest worked for a living and contributed to the upkeep of the students.

However, the fiscal capitulation of successive Israeli governments to the Haredim has meant almost every adult Haredi male can now afford to eschew paid employment in favour of yeshiva study, to the chagrin of secular Israeli society. Their sense of injustice is heightened over the issue of national service, and rightly so, yet their pleas to the Haredim to do their bit fall on deaf ears.

Haredim believe it is their study of Torah and prayers, rather than soldiers' manoeuvres in the field, that provide the last line of defence for the Jewish people – but such ethereal posturing does little to assuage the hostility their draft evasion engenders. Nor do proclamations such as that of Haredi leader Rabbi Shmuel Auerbach, who denounced the high-court ruling as "a decree to uproot religion", adding:

"We are commanded to protect [religion] with our lives without exception, God forbid, in order to sanctify the name of heaven. The purpose of this awful decree is to harm the heart of Judaism – this cannot be in Israel."

By flouting the laws of conscription, the Haredi community may well be challenging some important Talmudic directives. For example, the principle of dina d'malchuta dina (literally, the law of the land is the law). Jews are commanded to respect the laws of the host country in which they are domiciled, in order to foster good relations between themselves and their fellow citizens. Equally, there is the principle that preservation of life takes precedence over (almost) all other religious obligations. But when it comes to the Haredim in Israel, such civic-minded thinking goes out of the yeshiva window.

Instead, the ultra-orthodox prefer to endorse a caste system where only secular families send their children to the frontline, while their Haredi peers sit with their heads in books in safe and secure study halls. And woe betide any political faction who tries to stop them, or yet another coalition will be brought to its knees. The Haredim have no problem getting involved in mainstream society when it suits them, namely at the voting booth, but the buck stops there. Until the Haredim embrace their duties more holistically, secular Israelis must act to stop the rot, for the long-term good of all citizens of the state.

Personally I like the idea of a system where people are made equal regardless of their race, creed or social standing. I think having compulsory military service, or at least a national service, would be a really healthy thing for a society. It would go a fair way in instilling discipline, not to mention a sense of self-worth. People would also be much more appreciative of our forces currently fighting overseas, after all you could easily have been one of the people putting their lives at risk. I can see the downside of increased military spending, but beyond that I think the net benefits far outweigh the detriment.

What does Dakka think about the idea of compulsory military service?

**Ouze**

Hazardous Harry wrote:What does Dakka think about the idea of compulsory military service?

Speaking as an American with our unique attitudes and strengths to warmaking, I think it's a bad idea. You can't compel excellence, and we need excellence for today's modern, low intensity conflicts. I think by definition freely volunteered professional soldiers will always deliver a substantially different battlefield performance than conscripts.

If you live in a different country your strategy may be a lot different.

**Hazardous Harry**

Ouze wrote:
Hazardous Harry wrote:What does Dakka think about the idea of compulsory military service?

Speaking as an American with our unique attitudes and strengths to warmaking, I think it's a bad idea. You can't compel excellence, and we need excellence for today's modern, low intensity conflicts. I think by definition freely volunteered professional soldiers will always deliver a substantially different battlefield performance than conscripts.

If you live in a different country your strategy may be a lot different.

Well, I'm not suggesting anything like a zerg rush with fresh conscripts. And while volunteered professional soldiers may be altogether better in a combat situation, and would always be valued, the sheer numbers a country like the US could bring to hand would be staggering, certainly enough to put a squad on every street corner in cases of occupation. This would free up a lot of the professionals from routine duties and allow them to be put where they're really needed.

Since your objections seem purely based on the military effectiveness of the recruits, would you have anything against a (slightly longer) term of national service?

**Piston Honda**

I have piss poor vision. I can't even pass the eye chart exam on a drivers test.

No way the military would ever take a guy like me for front line combat.

They would put me on latrine duty.

And I don't want to clean out latrines that 1000s and 1000s of people use.

**AustonT**

Hazardous Harry wrote:What does Dakka think about the idea of compulsory military service?

If the question is simply what do I think of compulsory service I'm opposed to it in general. If the question is specifically about the Haredi as the article you linked is then I am all for it.

In the grand scheme of things volunteer professional armies are really the most effective force in the dominant military scheme. With high educational, and for the US an above average physical demands even for the trooper farthest from the frontlines. There's just not as much place for the human wave as there once was; don't get me wrong it still exists plenty.

**Hazardous Harry**

AustonT wrote:
Hazardous Harry wrote:What does Dakka think about the idea of compulsory military service?

If the question is simply what do I think of compulsory service I'm opposed to it in general. If the question is specifically about the Haredi as the article you linked is then I am all for it.

In the grand scheme of things volunteer professional armies are really the most effective force in the dominant military scheme. With high educational, and for the US an above average physical demands even for the trooper farthest from the frontlines. There's just not as much place for the human wave as there once was; don't get me wrong it still exists plenty.

I agree in part, but certainly not with the bit in bold. Have you seen the educational requirements for a basic trooper?

**AustonT**

Hazardous Harry wrote:
AustonT wrote:
Hazardous Harry wrote:What does Dakka think about the idea of compulsory military service?

If the question is simply what do I think of compulsory service I'm opposed to it in general. If the question is specifically about the Haredi as the article you linked is then I am all for it.

In the grand scheme of things volunteer professional armies are really the most effective force in the dominant military scheme. With high educational, and for the US an above average physical demands even for the trooper farthest from the frontlines. There's just not as much place for the human wave as there once was; don't get me wrong it still exists plenty.

I agree in part, but certainly not with the bit in bold. Have you seen the educational requirements for a basic trooper?

Depends really on what you consider a "basic trooper." I normally make the assumption people who say that mean a line infantryman; who is not by the way the dumbest guy in the military. In this day and age an infantryman must be able to operate various types of equipment varying from his weapon to a computerized anti tank or anti aircraft system. The last data I can remember is quite old: from about 1998. At that time the average IQ in the US armed forces was 108. The average IQ of an American adult is 98. There is certainly a bottom end, those guys generally aren't in combat arms branches. We can agree to disagree if you like, I'd rather no belabor the point.

Just as a fun fact: Socrates was an infantryman, in Athens.

**Lux_Lucis**

The military should not be used for social engineering. Go create a jumped up form of Scouts or similar if you want to do that.
The British military maintains its excellence through being professional and maintaining high esprit de corps. We're all there because we want to be, because we enjoy it and are loyal to our regiment and mates, and have worked to get where we are. You can't force somebody into that kind of thinking.

If I had to fight alongside the average person in the street, I think I'd honestly be safer tap-dancing in a minefield.

**dogma**

Hazardous Harry wrote:
What does Dakka think about the idea of compulsory military service?

Its a bad idea in all but a very narrow set of circumstances. It works well for a nation like Israel that is relatively small with a history of facing serious military threats, but for a nation like the US its simply wasted money.

As for national service: I wouldn't want to do it, as it would most likely just serve to delay any other plans I might have for minimal, if any, reward. I don't give nearly enough of a damn about any institution to accept that.

Would it be good for society? Possibly, though I'm not convinced it would necessarily instill discipline (What do you do with people that refuse to work?) and a sense of self-worth (What am I worth if I'm forced to do this thing I don't want to do?).

**deathholydeath**

dogma wrote:
Hazardous Harry wrote:
What does Dakka think about the idea of compulsory military service?

Its a bad idea in all but a very narrow set of circumstances. It works well for a nation like Israel that is relatively small with a history of facing serious military threats, but for a nation like the US its simply wasted money.

As for national service: I wouldn't want to do it, as it would most likely just serve to delay any other plans I might have for minimal, if any, reward. I don't give nearly enough of a damn about any institution to accept that.

Would it be good for society? Possibly, though I'm not convinced it would necessarily instill discipline (What do you do with people that refuse to work?) and a sense of self-worth (What am I worth if I'm forced to do this thing I don't want to do?).

This. I would never consider the military. I just don't care enough for it. I'm too much of an anarchist at heart. Having me in would probably be worse than having me out.

**Tibbsy**

Whilst I agree with the above that professional volunteer service is the ideal in regards to the military, not all national service has to be strictly military in nature, especially not for front-line soldiers. I think if it was to come in anywhere, the line infantry would need to remain wholly volunteers. Even within the military there are roles that could be performed behind the lines. The idea of national service does not need to be entirely military though. There are jobs that can be done outside the military that could use the extra manpower.

**SilverMK2**

I'm for national service - military style training and living for all, and a choice of combat support roles, or civil support roles for all those taking part.

**mattyrm**

I think the best regiments should be given conscripted meat shields to wear on deployment.

**CptJake**

I hate the idea. The US Fed Gov't should not be responsible for employing and paying every single citizen for a couple of years (or any length of time), nor for paying to grow the force to the size it would have to be to allow that. Tax payers should not have to fund something like that because it is not needed.

Even with some non-military but mandatory 'national service' it is a masive waste of resources and would still never come close to being 'fair'. You'll get some crap bag who weasles their way into a job counting books for a couple years in the national archives instead of digging drainage ditches or what ever. And again, it would all basically be labor for some made up need paid for by tax payers.

**Kilkrazy**

I'm against national service but if like Israel you have to have it then it should apply to everyone equally.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

The very idea of compulsory military service goes against everything America should stand for i.e no standing army and the defence of the realm to be left in the hands of militias. That might sound a bit 1770s, but there it is.
Conscription or compulsory service in the UK has always proved unpopular (except when Germans are involved) so it would never take off.

**Medium of Death**

IIRC these are the same guys that were trying to stop women from voting.

Not sure if a contempt for women would go down well in a mixed gender military.

They do need a severe kick up the arse though.

**streamdragon**

I think the article touches on a concept beyond just "mandatory military service", it touches on "social-group exemptions".

I'm wholly and unequivocably against exemptions based on a given social group, any group, especially if said group is going to have heavy say in how the government responds.

Especially in the case of Israel, you have a group of ultra-orthodox shazbags pushing their weight around, expecting everyone else to defend them and aquiesce to their way of doing things. Frell that. You want social services provided by the governemnt, you do your damn part in providing them.

**dogma**

CptJake wrote:And again, it would all basically be labor for some made up need paid for by tax payers.

I'm not entirely sure that's true as there's no need for all people involved in mandatory service to be employed in manual labor. There are a host of menial bureaucratic tasks in which serving individuals could be employed. Additionally, there's no particular reason that everyone would have to begin their service at, say, 18. You could establish an age by which service must be completed, and then require all citizens to serve for a period of time (Measured in years, months, days, or hours.) prior to that age.

As such the relevant questions are:

1) Is it politically feasible? (No.)

2) Is it more cost effective than normal government employment? (Maybe.)

Automatically Appended Next Post:

streamdragon wrote:
Especially in the case of Israel, you have a group of ultra-orthodox shazbags pushing their weight around, expecting everyone else to defend them and aquiesce to their way of doing things. Frell that. You want social services provided by the governemnt, you do your damn part in providing them.

The Haredim are a special case when it comes to the ultra-orthodox community in that the majority of them are anti-zionist. There are even factions of Haredim that support Hamas and Iran.

**Ouze**

Hazardous Harry wrote:Since your objections seem purely based on the military effectiveness of the recruits, would you have anything against a (slightly longer) term of national service?

I'd be totally OK with that; especially in light of stop-lossing. Having them sign up for a longer term right off the bat would be a much more honest way of doing things.

**Ensis Ferrae**

I don't agree with compulsory military service, but "compulsory public service" ?? I think I could get behind that....

Lump all government into this, and include senate and house of reps. into this category, limit the amount of time a person can be a senator, representative, etc. just like we do the pres.

We'd have to come up with a system similar to military MOSs, where a "career councelor" sits down with ya when you're gettin ready to enter your service period, they have a look at your ASVAB scores, and you get one of several (or not so many, depending on how bright a crayon you are)... this way, yeah people are serving "against their will" but at least they are going somewhere where they should do good at, thus building confidence, etc. prior to entering the "real workforce"

**CptJake**

Ouze wrote:
Hazardous Harry wrote:Since your objections seem purely based on the military effectiveness of the recruits, would you have anything against a (slightly longer) term of national service?

I'd be totally OK with that; especially in light of stop-lossing. Having them sign up for a longer term right off the bat would be a much more honest way of doing things.

Our guys DO sign up for a longer term off the bat. 8 years. They must serve a portion of that 8 active duty depending on the terms of their specfic enlistment contract, but are subject to be recalled or to stay on active duty the full 8 years if Unca Sam needs then to. Cases where a trooper was 'stop lossed' past that are pretty darned rare. Generally (at least army) the first re-enlistment negates that 8 years and makes you 'indef', or you serve until retirement or you submit your paperwork to get out. At that point again, just because you decide you want out doesn't mean your chosen dates are accepted. None of this info is hidden from the troops. In fact, it is explained to them multiple times in the process. Some don't make an effort to understand, misunderstand, or choose to ignore the terms of their contract and think that 'I only enlisted for 3 years' even though the paperwork they signed and had explained is for an 8 year term.

**AustonT**

mattyrm wrote:I think the best regiments should be given conscripted meat shields to wear on deployment.

Says the Commando...

Kilkrazy wrote:I'm against national service but if like Israel you have to have it then it should apply to everyone equally.

I think especially in Israel where so much public money is spent on social programs and benefits are received and taken advantage of by the Haredi, it is only fair to expect them to pay back the body politic. Not to mention the pretty simple Human Resources math that excluding like 1/7th of the Jewish population is ridiculous, they need to be responsible for defending their country just as much as the seculars.

CptJake wrote:

Generally (at least army) the first re-enlistment negates that 8 years and makes you 'indef', or you serve until retirement or you submit your paperwork to get out.

You said that for brevity right?

**Ouze**

I guess I wasn't aware that stop-lossing was as rare as you say, I was under the impression that it was a fairly common practice.

**sirlynchmob**

I'm for it,

If you make everyone do a few years after high school, then there would be more pressure on the government to to wrap up these wars and bring out troops home. Plus there would be a lot more reluctance about starting a new war with Iran.

**AustonT**

Ouze wrote:I guess I wasn't aware that stop-lossing was as rare as you say, I was under the impression that it was a fairly common practice.

REAL stop lossing is rare, people say they were stop lossed when they were merely stop movement. I cant remember but Im pretty sure that even before the retroactive program there was special pay attached to stop losses. When I have ran into it in person it was almost always in the most threadbare MOS' that simply could not train replacements before that person was leaving. Stop movement is actually pretty common though.

**Amaya**

It depends. I can understand why Israel does it, but I believe a volunteer service is typically superior to a conscripted one.

**Chowderhead**

Amaya wrote:It depends. I can understand why Israel does it, but I believe a volunteer service is typically superior to a conscripted one.

Agreed.

Israel has CMS because they're surrounded on all sides by enemies who want to blow them to Kingdom Come.

The US and UK doesn't need that right now.

**hotsauceman1**

You want me?
someone who Is over weight, and has bad lungs to go into the military?
No, Keep people where they are most effective.
All we would be doing is getting more people killed who shouldnt have been there in the first place.

**Melissia**

More related to the article than the topic, it''s good to see that religious extremists can't use their religious extremism to get out of serving their country I suppose.

Religious/Conscientious objectors can be given non-violent jobs, such as medical, staffing, desk jobs, etc to protect their religious vows and views while still serving.

As for mandatory service in the US, as long as it included both civilian (IE non-military governmental bodies) AND military I think it'd work.