On the one hand, too many young people are out of work. On the other, the Western world is gradually realising its armed forces are inadequate in the face of threats from Russia and other aggressive dictatorships.
In a dire moment, a dire solution comes to mind: conscription.
The idea has some appeal. Drill sergeants have long experience at giving work to idle hands.
The Army’s had three periods of conscription in which to build up the knowledge of how to do it.
1916-18, 1939-45 and 1948 (?) 1960(?)
If the first two there was an actual and bloody war on and the requirement was for infantry with a couple of months training. That can be done with compulsion and, it’s fair to say, the general agreement that the job was worth doing of those being conscripted.
In the third episode, peacetime, the Navy took no conscripts, the RAF few, the Army took near all. And, if we’re honest about it, it was a disaster. Past the early 50s no one actually did anything after basic. Or near nothing at least.
All the other 400 years of the Army’s existence it has been training up people who wanted to be there. This is inherently different from trying to gain a decent response out of the sullen who have been conscripted.
Conscription simply won’t give us armed forces worth having – as with the Navy not taking any last time around. But rather more than that, unless the Army starts shooting people for telling Sergeant Majors to fuck off I don’t see it working at all. There really would have to be serious and significant punishment of a large number of people to get today’s youth buckling down. And I really don;t think modern society would be willing to put up with the bill for that – the bill I insist would actually be necessary.
BTW, the people most against conscription are likely the officers.