Should Military Service Be Mandatory Essay Format

Compulsory Military Service Essay

by Ritesh
(Bangalore)


Can anyone please tell me how much will I possibly score in writing with below essay?

Many countries have compulsory military service for men after they leave school. It would be a good idea to adopt this system, for men and possibly women.

To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement?


With increasing job opportunities and career options in various fields people are reluctant to join military. This is becoming a major concern for various countries. There are a few countries where men have to serve military necessarily after completing their education. In my opinion this rule should be there in every country both for men and women. This will not only strengthen armed forces of the country but will also improve health and security of people.

Although countries have started using machines more than men during wars, still the importance of human soldiers cannot be neglected. With the growth of finance, marketing and education sectors, people are getting more job opportunities. most importantly the risk of life is not there in these sectors. This is the main reason of people becoming reluctant to join armed forces. If military service is made mandatory, people will not have any option other than joining military for a few years. This will help in strengthening of military.

Health is another area where people will be benefitted by joining military. Rigorous exercises and activities help in strengthening both mind and body. Increasing fat in people can be dealt with only by physical exercise.

Crime is growing at an alarming rate in every country. More than half of these crimes are against women. Most of these crimes are committed because women are not confident enough to oppose the crime. Military training can help in improving their confidenceto stand against crime and raise their voice.

To conclude, military service after schooling should be made compulsory both for males as swell as females. This improve country's security as well as the health of its citizens.

Click here to post comments

Return to IELTS Essay Feedback Forum.

Debate Digest: Teacher-student friendships on Facebook, Law school, Balanced budget amendment, US debt ceiling deal.

Debate: Mandatory military service

From Debatepedia

Jump to: navigation, search

[]
[]
[]
[]

[Edit]

Is compulsory national service a good idea?

[Edit]

Background and context

Many countries in the world have compulsory service. Such democratic countries as Austria, Brazil, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Israel, Mexico, Norway, Russia, South Korea, Sweden, Switzerland and Turkey are among them. Compulsory military service is normally for 18-year-olds, and lasts between 1 and 3 years.
And there are usually many types of service that can be performed, ranging from combat roles to intelligence and logistic work. Different genders are frequently given different responsibilities. In Israel, for example, males usually perform 3 years of combat/security service, while females perform two years of non-combat service. Many nations grapple with the question of mandatory military service, including the United States. Proponents believe it increases the strength of the military, strengthens the character of youth, and increases the collective conscience of a nation and the restraint of leaders when considering military action. Opponents consider it an affront to individual liberties, a risk in breeding militarism and the dominance of the state, and simply unnecessary when voluntary armies can be sufficient. These and other pros and cons and quotations are documented below.

[Edit]

[]
[]
[]
[]

Character: Does national service help build individual character?

[]

[Edit]

Yes

  • Military service offers invaluable experiences It is a significant change from past experiences for young individuals; a shift in perspective that can help them see life differently, inspire them to work harder in the future, and foster a greater sense of purpose and responsibility to one's nation.
  • National service produces valuable character traits: Young people are taught respect for authority, self-discipline, teamwork and leadership skills.[1]
  • National service teaches skills valuable in marketplace. People could train as engineers, IT specialists, drivers, chefs etc. In the long-run this will reduce unemployment, lower the crime rate and help the economy.[2]
  • Compulsory service engenders appreciation for freedoms"Mandatory Military service and the effects it would have on society." Nolan Chart. December 15th, 2008: "Upon leaving high school men and women are required, by law, to join the military for at least two years. There is no choice in the matter; if they don't go they get the same rights as a felon. Yes, when a person goes into the military they lose certain rights for a little while, but is that necessarily bad? No. If they have never had their basic rights taken from them they will never place as high a value on those rights, or on the sacrifice their ancestors made to give them those rights. It is a growing problem in America for people to take their rights for granted. Take peoples rights away temporarily and people start to value what they have more; and they start to value their country more. Patriotism will be on the rise."
[]

[Edit]

No

  • Mandating military service drains its many virtues According to a 2006 Time commentary, "many have argued that requiring service drains the gift of its virtue."[3] This is because in order for an act to be patriotic, it has to be voluntary. If it is required, then it is nothing special.
  • Impossible to mandate morality of stateBruce Chapman. "A bad idea whose time is past: the case against universal service." Brookings Institute. 2002: "Outside of mass mobilization for war—or in the special case of Israel, a small nation effectively on constant alert—the only modern nations that have conscripted labor to meet assorted, centrally decreed social purposes have been totalitarian regimes. In those lands, the object, as much as anything, has been to indoctrinate youth in the morality of the state. Litan may not have such goals in mind, but many universal service advocates want to use conscription to straighten out the next generation—to their approved standards. No doubt many-most?-think they can inculcate a sense of voluntary service through compulsory service."
  • Government better off running training schemes. This would also teach skills but would save all the money that would go into the bureaucracy of running national service.[4]
  • Military service diverts young from university/career. Time spent doing military service is time taken away from the transition between high school and university education.

[Edit]

[]
[]
[]
[]
[]

Security: Is national conscription important to national security?

[]

[Edit]

Yes

  • Compulsory military service is very cost-effective. "Mandatory service is a very cost-efficient defence solution. Many European countries who have abandoned military service have had lost of problems recruiting,” Gustav Hägglund, former head of Finland’s armed forces said in 2009.[5]
  • Conscription sometimes necessary to be ready for war. Conscription during peacetime would mean that the country was prepared for emergencies when they happened, rather than having to prepare after the fact.[6]
  • Mandatory service often needed to have adequate forces Swedish brigadier general Bengt Axelsson responded to the phasing out of Sweden's military in 2009: "I want to raise a warning finger. It’s not going to be possible to achieve the volume of soldiers people are now counting on having by relying on volunteers."[7]
  • Service necessary for some geographically threatened states. Henrik Trasberg, a 20-year-old law student who is at the moment serving in the 4th Single Infantry Battalion in Johvi as a driver, thinks that mandatory military service is necessary: "Our geographic location and historical backround forces Estonia to have a good defense capacity. Further."[8]
[]

[Edit]

No

  • Conscripts never as good as professional soldiers Conscripts will not last as long nor be as combat reliable in the battlefield as compared to a real soldier who is trained to do both. These 'conscripts' (candidates) are only given the basic training of how to wield a gun and aim, but that short-lived training will never prepare them to readily pull the trigger to end someone's life, therefore lowering their combat-efficiency because of the uncertainties they pose as soldiers. Furthermore, soldiers undergo years of vigorous physical exercise to constantly improve their physical shape for the merciless battlefield. The candidates however only have but a few months of such training at a lower magnitude, and this cannot be sufficient in preparing them for battle.
  • Compulsory service brings in unqualified and unfit. Kaarel Siim, a team doctor in the Estonian Kuperjanov Infantry Battalion, said in March of 2011: "there are too many unqualified people and, in addition, quite a lot of them suffer from psychological problems.”[9]
  • Compulsory service inefficiently uses training resources Extensively training individuals that will subsequently only spend a couple of years in their respective roles is simply inefficient. It usually takes many years to secure a good return on investment from such training expenditures. Short-term compulsory service is, therefore, an inefficient use of resources.
  • No justification for mandatory service where no threat exists. Britain, for example, is not under any threat and there is no evidence that it will be in the near future. The army is capable of carrying out its role and the training of conscripts would only divert its time from more important matters.[10]
  • Unnecessary to train whole nation to prepare for threats. Suhail Al-Enizi, aged 28, argued in 2010 that military service in Kuwait should not be mandatory: "I am certain that we have enough soldiers in the army. We don't need to train the entire nation in order to be ready for threats; we are not in a police state. This is a democracy."[11]

[Edit]

[]
[]
[]
[]
[]

Society: Does mandatory service help solve social ills?

[]

[Edit]

Pro

  • Military service fosters a collective conscience Swedish editorialist Kennet Andreasson wrote when Sweden ended its mandatory service in 2010: "There is good reason to fear that with the end of military service yet another level of collective conscience will disappear. [...] The connection between obligations and rights has become less and less clear."[12]
  • Mandatory military service will cure many of society's illsArmstrong Williams. "Mandatory Military Service Would Benefit the U.S." News Max. June 19th, 2006: "Would you like to see your son, daughter, niece, nephew or teenage neighbor become hard-working, respectful, disciplined, honorable and prepared for life? Would you like to see crime, teenage pregnancy and substance abuse rates decline? No, this is not an advertisement for a magic pill; this is an argument for mandatory military service."
  • Mandatory service creates diverse, unified melting potAri Bussel. "Mandatory military service works in Israel." News Blaze. November 26, 2009: "The IDF is a melting pot it is an army of all the people, those from rich and poor homes, religious and secular backgrounds, different shades of skin color, smart and slow, disabled and healthy, courageous and hesitant. Service pushes all through a mixer, treating them equally, placing the same demands and entrusting the same great responsibilities regardless of creed, ethnicity, or other labels or affiliations."
[]

[Edit]

Con

  • Mandatory service fosters militarismOral Calislar. "Mandatory military service essence of militarism." Daily News. September 1, 2010: "'Mandatory military service' is one of the best methods of forcing militarism on society. The heart of the message sent to the entire society and all men are this: 'No matter how educated you are, or what status you have in society, the military is above you; even the lowest military rank is your superior.' Since the aim is to make people believe in how untouchable the military is, mandatory military service is a privilege that militarism will not let go easily. This is the reason behind reactions against military service by payment. [...] 'If you a lawyer or an engineer or an architect, an artist or academics; if you speak five different languages, the lowest ranking military official is still your superior.'"
  • Mandatory service unjustified to increase political engagement.Ilya Somin. "Why Mandatory 'National Service' Proposals Target the Young." Volokh Conspiracy. September 24th, 2007: "At this point, I know some moralists will claim that the young "deserve" any political setbacks they suffer because they don't participate in politics enough. Such arguments overlook the obvious fact that many of the political disadvantages of the poor (e.g. - lack of money, lack of access to political office, lack of experience) are ones that they can't easily offset. And whatever the validity of the general view that the young should spend more time on political activity, I hope we can agree that forced labor is not a proper punishment for spending too little time on politics."

[Edit]

[]
[]
[]
[]
[]

Fairness: Is mandatory service more fair overall?

[]

[Edit]

Pro

  • Military service secures all rights and privileges.Ari Bussel. "Mandatory military service works in Israel." News Blaze. November 26, 2009: "f) The IDF is Israel's future, for it enables Israel to focus on innovation and creativity, to flourish and thrive, to grow and succeed in the harshest of environments (climate, lack of resources, human enemies, etc.). By providing the deterrence and safety net, the IDF allows citizens not in active service to live their daily lives in the most unlikely and currently unfriendly of places their eternal homeland. The IDF is the cement, the building blocks, the embodiment of past, present and future of Israel."
  • National service can involve non-combat roles."The Case for a National Service Draft." Right Democrat. November 25th, 2010: "The civilian service option.Don't want to go military? Not a problem. We have lots of other jobs at hand. You do two years of them -- be a teacher's aide at a troubled inner-city school, clean up the cities, bring meals to elderly shut-ins. We might even think about how this force could help rebuild the American infrastructure, crumbling after 30 years of neglect. These national service people would receive post-service benefits essentially similar to what military types get now, with tuition aid."
[]

[Edit]

Con

  • Youth always find way to avoid mandatory service.Bruce Chapman. "A bad idea whose time is past: the case against universal service." Brookings Institute. 2002: "Youth, ever ingenious, found ways to get deferments, decamp to Canada, make themselves a nuisance to everyone in authority-and make those who did serve feel like chumps. Many of the young people who objected to military service availed themselves of alternative service, but no one seriously believed that most "conscientious objectors" were "shouldering the burden of war" in a way comparable to those fighting in the field."
  • Mandating service inconsistent with liberal rightsBruce Chapman. "A bad idea whose time is past: the case against universal service." Brookings Institute. 2002: "Universal service advocates such as Litan are on especially shaky ground when charging that citizens should be 'required to give something to their country in exchange for the full range of rights to which citizenship entitles them.' This cuts against the grain of U.S. history and traditions. Citizens here are expected to be law-abiding, and they are called to jury duty—and to the military if absolutely necessary. They are encouraged (not forced) to vote and to render voluntary service—which Americans famously do. But to require such service before the rights of citizenship are extended is simply contrary to the purposes for which the country was founded and has endured."

[Edit]

[]
[]
[]
[]
[]

Patriotism: Does national service help build patriotism?

[]

[Edit]

Yes

  • National service promotes patriotism. National pride is at an all-time low in New Zealand at the moment, for example, and national service might give them a chance to rally around a shared cause, no matter what race culture or religion you come from. Nationhood develops respect for people belongings and property.[13]
[]

[Edit]

No

  • Patriotism should not be based on military service. This can produce extreme nationalism and xenophobia which we do not want to encourage. National Pride should be engendered in other ways.
  • Mandatory military service will not increase patriotism. Suhail Al-Enizi, aged 28, responded in 2010 to idea of implementing mandatory military service in Kuwait: "People's sense of patriotism, their attachment to this country, is not something that can be increased by putting them into military programs."[14]

[Edit]

[]
[]
[]
[]
[]

Duty? Does a citizen have a duty to serve their country?

[]

[Edit]

Yes

  • Individual has duty to give back to society through service. Whether it be through protecting the country or helping with social or environmental projects, this encourages the idea of working as a community instead of merely for selfish ends.[16]
Categories: 1

0 Replies to “Should Military Service Be Mandatory Essay Format”

Leave a comment

L'indirizzo email non verrà pubblicato. I campi obbligatori sono contrassegnati *