No country can leave its people and land without an army. As that country will be at risk for many colonial countries that aim to take advantage of the other countries’ goods and even to protect the state from within in the event of any disasters.Military army in Latin is called “Arma” and in the old French it called “Armee”, according to recent study (2018) the army is amilitary land force or ground force is a fighting force that battles primarily on land. In the broadest sense, the military branch, branch of service and the army of a nation or state are based on the land. Aviation capital may also be included by providing an aviation army element. The term “unit” may also mean a field army within a national military force.The PLA Ground Force of China, with its 1,600,000 active troops and 510,000 staff in reserve, and in India 1,129,000 active troops, 960,000 reserve personnel, are currently the world’s largest army with numerous active troops. The question is, should joining the army be compulsory or not? So that the first paragraph will clarify the supporting claim and the second one will clarify the opposing claim and the third one is a conclusion of the whole essay.

Joining the army does not have to be compulsory, because no one knows the desire of the joined individual, his directions, his ambitions, or his ability to give in this place, and this will benefit the army itself.The recognized role of the army anywhere in the world is to protect the state or the people from any internal or external danger and the person who is not willing to join is a member of this army, so how will this person be trusted andhim not enthusiastic and willing to do this thing?  and the reason or evidence for that is that who loves something gives in him from the bottom of his heart and is full of enthusiasm towards defending his homeland and sacrificing his life in order to give safety to the people how a person who is forced to do something to do these things. In a previous statistic, it shows the great change in the obligation to join the army after most countries around the world were forced to join the army. Now, 21 countries are continuing approaching to join the army and nearly 10 countries plan to make joining the army not compulsory in the next three years and what over 50 countries that do not approach to join the army and one country that does not have a large population does not have an army at all.

In the other way There are some who support compulsory accession to the army, as this is considered the duty of the individual towards its homeland and that it is the responsibility towards the country to contribute to keeping the country safe and that some countries are obliged to make joining the army compulsory because it does not contain a large population.But the response is if that country needs a sufficient number in the army with people forced to join the army, the number remains insufficient because these people are useless because they do not like what they are doing and the evidence for that in a recent statistic in 2019 despite the fact that the Egyptian army is considered the largest army in The Arab world, however, the number of affiliates wishing to do so does not exceed 20% of the total enrollment each year.

The last two paragraphs have clarified the pro and the opposing claim of the compulsory in joining the army and provided some statistics and studies that supports the pro claim and refute to the opposing claim and finally if all the countries make the joining to the army optionally all the armies will be more stronger as it have Loving, enthusiastic and willing members to sacrifice their lives for the sake of defending the homeland and the people.

Written by: Karim Adel (189677)

“Nationalism is both a vital medicine and a dangerous drug.” Those are the words of the Australian historian, academic, philanthropist and commentator Geoffrey Blainey. There is no doubt that nationalism is a vital element to build a nation. According to Brilmayer (1995), on one hand, nationalism plays an essential role in shaping the political process and defending the country and on the other hand, nationalism is a motive to self sacrifice and devotion to the state. One form of self sacrifice and a devotion to the state is conscription. Basically, it is a form of military service that links the individual with its state that may involve his death for the sake of the state’s safety and security. However, some countries use the ideology of nationalism to promote for the obligatory conscription. This raises the debate of the promotion of nationalism and its relation with conscription. The opinions on compulsory conscription have always been divided, some view it as an aggressive nationalism and some view it as strength and defend to the citizens and the nation.

Compulsory conscription can also be considered as a force labor. Not only does forced conscription have a wrong match between the jobs and the people, but also it exposes the short-term soldiers to high professional weapons and training. For instance and according to Human Rights Documentation Unit of the National Coalition Government of the Union of Burma, the Burmese military authorities implemented the forced conscription in 2005 where they forced the public to attend the military training and join the local militia. As a result, children, females and males were obligated to enter the army as an excuse to enhance nationalism although it was reported that no one will leave the army at the end of their enlistment without first recruiting three or four replacements. Another example is the relation between Germany and France after World War II, both countries has very small borders however they worked intensely to increase the solders in the army. It was then discovered that they both are using the ideology of nationalism that attracted the youth to it. It is noteworthy to know that they used to get the solders by forced conscription to join the army (Poutvaara & Wagener, 2011).

 Conscription involves the inefficiency and unfairness of violating free choice and equality. Besides that conscription bears the individual from his right of choice, it offers them low wages other than the rest civilian population. The reason behind this is difference between the professional militia and a forced soldier. The high cost of training and experience limits the wages that are given to the short-term soldiers (Kwang Ng, 2008). In addition, the conscription is taxes that are forced and originally from underpaid labor services thus, the professional army assigned its staff for recruitment from the labor market and compensates it out of the revenues from taxes. This led the youth to avoid volunteering in the conscription (Poutvaara & Wagener, 2009). As for an instance, Russia’s conscription lasts for 2 years however it is evaded by 90% of the males by not only extracting fake medical certificates and university certificate but also bribing the employees or even miss out the interview in the drafting station (Poutvaara & Wagener, 2009).

As the compulsory conscription has been attacked and criticized it also has been defended. The main claim is that forced conscription teaches the youth nationalism, their rights and values and the techniques to build a well-constructive nation. According to Poutvaara and Wagener (2011) and delivering the message of Malaysia’s national Service Program at 2003 he declared: “1.instilling spirit of patriotism among the young generation or youths of Malaysia; 2. fostering unity amongst races and national integration; and 3. building positive characters through noble values.” Moreover, according to Paret (1970), he defined nationalism as national self preservation, individual awareness and appreciation to his native country. Besides, it is the loyalty to his original country and its history, culture and beliefs that urge the citizen to serve the country’s army. Nevertheless, it was found that the link between nationalism and obligatory conscription is related to the social class. For instance, in 19^th century, the idea of nationalism emerged when there was a clash between the bourgeoisie and the proletarian and that erupt a new wave of acknowledging their civic rights. Thus, in order to resolve this issue the bourgeoisie distributed the rights so that the middle class and working class were sent to conscription (Paret, 1970). In addition, the media propaganda during the cold war to persuade the youth to join the army as volunteers and maybe even sacrifice his life under the name of nationalism and devotion to the state even though the professional army was ready to do this. For instance, officials would hang posters “the country needs you” and “you are the hero” to portray to the youngsters that responsibilities that he would take disguising it under the slogan of nationalism (Welch, 2014). All these were an excuse to increase the recruitment to go into war and boost the war donation.     

To conclude, there is no higher value the individual can give to its native country than to fight and defend it with all his will and power. However, pushing citizens into military training may result into the opposite of the wanted outcome.  Therefore, nationalism cannot be excuse to be taken in conscription. Each individual must have the right to serve his country in his preferred way that would result into a real benefit to the state. However, in the case of a country allocated in a warzone, it would be desirable to confine the military service to a fraction of the population.     

Written by: Mariam Fahmy (180132)

Conscription is usually linked to patriotism, heroism and national affiliation, but the fact that an estimate of 30% of soldiers in the Vietnam war have suffered from PTSD in their lifetime is bound to raise some suspicions over this mandatory military system. Conscription is the mandatory enlistment of young men starting the age of 18 till almost 25, and although some boys do succeed in getting exempted from this service due to either medical, educational or other reasons, joining a country’s military service for at least one year is simply inevitable for young men all around the world. Consequently, various arguments have been raised on whether mandatory conscription is in fact a genuine obligation that is an essential aspect in any country or if the damage it causes to individuals’ mental and psychological wellbeing and the fact that not all enlisted boys are stable enough to endure this grave experience are sufficient to oppose the entire system. Moreover, it is crucial to consider the fact that not only does this impact the lives of constricts after their service ends, but it also hinders the quality of the military service itself.

To begin with, not only is military conscription an act of violation to one’s own will and right to decide and plan their future, but it is also an imposition on their lives with complete disregard to individual differences that make some people not built for the experience either physically or mentally. Although in most cases, physical and medical examinations are held before conscription, the mental and psychological stability of young boys are entirely ignored. In that sense, the inhumane treatment of soldiers in some countries, the remorseless trainings, ferocious disciplinary punishments and having to accept the probability of killing someone are merely examples of the brutal experiences that soldiers have to endure in the army. In this regards, conscription is a representation of slavery and involuntarily servitude where a person is ordered by the state to abandon his life and choose either to kill or be killed (Hornberger, 2019). All these factors have contributed in the momentous rise of the numbers of victims of post-traumatic stress disorders which could appear either right after the traumatic event or after years of it. In other words, an elderly man who was enlisted in the army decades ago could suffer from PTSD due to the horrors of the experience at any point in his life, so only a year’s worth of trauma could lead to distressing and emotional memories, flashbacks, nightmares and even symptoms of severe anxiety. This explains the considerable number of deaths of young people during the duration of their enlistment without even taking part in war and the huge number who remain afflicted with the terror even after years of the experience. However, many governments around the world are not acting upon this issue, so could this chronic demolishment of the psychological health of millions of people really be considered as merely a side effect of something that brings real value to the community?

It is said that one is as strong as its weakest link. Therefore, an army that is comprised of mentally unstable, vulnerable and traumatized individuals will never be a powerful one, and “when people have to be forced to fight in a particular war, that is a good sign that the government should not be waging that war” (Hornberger, 2019). In other words, the quality of the military service in any country could be greatly compromised due to the incapability of soldiers to cope with the severity of military life which results in low combat skill quality and hence, the system gets subjected to high casualty rates. Additionally, a study conducted by the Anxiety and Depression Association of America proved that 40,000 of the soldiers who took part in the war in Iraq and Afghanistan suffered from PTSD (Regoli, 2018). This extensively great number of PTSD war victims could only aid in the anticipation of the massive number of soldiers who must have not been psychologically and mentally strong enough to bear the brutality of war, having to kill and watching people get killed, and thus they lost the rest of their lives as a cost to this system that was most probably imposed upon them at a very young innocent age due to mandatory military conscription. Also, it is worth noting that if joining the military was only voluntarily, more soldiers who are actually suited for this lifestyle and are passionate and mentally prompted to face the hardships of military life will be able to take the place of those who are usually forced to be enlisted, and thus more value will be added to the army.

On the other hand, some people may support the claim that mandatory conscription is in fact an opportunity for individuals to gain some skills from the military life. Firstly, their argument is that the army shapes the character of an individual and thus, it has the ability to strengthen it and provide skills and attitudes that will help them in their lives later on such as responsibility, initiative, stress management, teamwork, discipline and self-defense. However, even though this claim might in fact be accurate, building up a strong skillful character is one thing, but constructing a shattered personality and a mentally unstable mind is another! In other words, joining the army voluntarily with the will and power to cope with its grave and harsh ambiance will definitely allow for more space for learning and acquiring skills with an open mindset and determined will. Nevertheless, forcing individuals to join the army regardless of the possible routes they might have planned for their futures might draft students out of their education plans, forbid young people from good job opportunities, and most importantly it will drain all their energy and mental strength if they are not fit for this kind of life.

To conclude, military conscription should never be mandatory for many reasons. For example, some individuals are not psychologically ready to cope with the harsh brutal life in the army and accept the many factors that might accompany war such as killing people and risking their own lives. In that sense, a considerable number of soldiers suffer from post-traumatic stress disorders which they usually suffer from for the rest of their lives. Furthermore, not only does conscription develop a risk on soldiers’ mental wellbeing, but it also does not add value to the military institution itself, whereas those unfit soldiers take the place of others who might be more capable and more ready for the military life, and this has led to the increased number of casualties in wars and the huge number of soldiers who suffer from PTSDs. Finally, although some people claim that conscription allows the acquirement of new skills and behaviors that everyone needs to learn at some point in their lives, it is undeniable that the fact that if those soldiers have not been forced to join and disregard all their potential future plans, they might have been more capable to learn and acquire skills. All those aspects form an extremely substantial evidence for why military service should not be obligatory, for those couple of years may bring about a whole lifetime of life imprisonment in one’s own trauma and anxiety.

Sherry Emad Ramsis

ID: 190994   

Should joining the army be mandatory?

            Mandatory military service has been a field of controversy between people for a long while. According to Nicholas A. Krehbiel (2016), compulsory military service has started during the cold war in Europe but ended in UK by 1963. Almost all European countries, except for the UK, consider the military service as an obligation for men ageing from 18-25 years old. However, it is quite questionable if this is acceptable or not. Some people claim that it is catastrophic for men’s psychological and physical health and that it is not truly advantageous, nonetheless, it was proven that the pros of mandatory military service outweighed its cons. Put in another way, military service for both men and women should be mandatory as it is thoroughly auspicious, in terms of building a powerful army, equalising rights between men and women and finally improving mental and physical health for the people joining.

            To start with, obligatory military service helps build a strong army for the countries so that they can always be qualified enough and ready to fight at any time. North Korea, for instance, is at a steady stage of the war. As a result, they are exerting all the efforts they have to always have a proficient army who is loyal for the country and ready to fight for it. Moreover, it is being researched if they could aim at obliging women to join the army as well as men, in order to start taking steps towards completely equalizing the rights between men and women, and ending the patriarchal history. As most of the crimes that re committed around the world are against women, considering them as the delicate gender that hasn’t got enough physical ability to defend themselves, military service will teach them how to fight for themselves and for their country. Last but not least, compulsory military service would advance mental and physical health for the youth. In other words, trainings that people go through in the army plays a huge role in body building youth and teaching them techniques for quick responses and how to think critically when they are short of time. They are also taught a whole lot of survival skills that would help them survive in certain situations.

            Opponents may suggest that mandatory military service wipe away all youth’s freedom and violates free will, as well as claiming that not everyone is fit enough to join the army. According to Natalie Regoli, it was mentioned that some people with mental, physical and psychological issues are not fit enough to join the army, which is considered as a form of abuse for such people. In addition to this, people also claim that joining the army would interfere with their education process as the age 18 is the peak of learning and joining the army would get in the way of their career. It is also said that people who are forced into the army are less likely to perform their best that volunteers, therefore the strength of the army is at risk.

            In fact, people who claim that the obligation of joining the army is a sort of violation of free will could not notice that people actually want to the freedom but no one really wants to fight for it. Citizens think that it is effortless to live in peace everyday and feel free to do whatever they want. They want a safe life when they completely ignore the militias who stay up late everyday risking their lives for ensuring citizens stay safe. In addition, the army does check-ups on the appliers to make sure they are fit enough to enter the army, and in case they are not fit enough they are refused. When it comes to the learning process, military services take by maximum three years of service, thus, people could have the chance before and after they are done with their education. Last but not least, as the soldiers enter the army and the time goes by, nationalism is built within them so they become more loyal than others, this will make them perform their best in order to fight for their country and for the safety of other people.

            To conclude, military service should be mandatory for all citizens starting from 18 years old as it has a lot of advantages on their physical and mental health. Obligation of the military service guarantees improvement of the army, promotes nationalism for the citizens and helps them improve their physical and mental health, and finally allowing women to enter the military service would be a vital step in order to reach a stable country with equal rights for men and women.

Joy Amgad

186954

Countries around the world have their own militaries; the way one is chosen for military service differs from one country to another. Some countries have voluntary military service, in which the citizens choose joining the military as a career. In other countries, military service is a mandatory conscription system. Many governments in history used mandatory military service as their strategy to large and powerful army that is ready to protect and fight in times of war. Military service exists since ancient civilizations known as “Military conscription” or “The draft”, but the first known modern model of the conscription was acknowledged at the time of the French Revolution in the 1790s. Furthermore, the Babylonian kingdoms also established a conscription system under the ancient code of Hammurabi called “ilkum” before the warrior class or military elites were known. Also during the Civil War the military conscription was introduced in the United States. Similar conscription systems around the world were then established with different required periods of military service. The public opinion on whether military service should be mandatory or voluntary is split. According to ProCon (2019), “49% of people favor one year of required service for young Americans, while the others are opposing.” Moreover, another report conducted by the BBC demonstrated that 60% of the people are in favor of this issue.  There are many ongoing debates regarding military service, so the question is, should military service be compulsory or not? Although many argue that military service should be voluntary as people should be free to choose if they want to join or not, mandatory military service promotes national unity, provides useful skills, and helps young people mature.

One of the main aspects that support mandatory military conscription is its promotions to the national unity. By making the military service compulsory, a sense of unity is created in the society among the citizens, as everyone is required to serve regardless of the social class making them share the same experience. “Mandatory military service promotes national unity in many ways. First, it allows citizens to learn and train together, creating that shared experience of having served in the military.” (Connectus, 2018). Therefore, when the citizens of different classes train, work, sleep, and eat together, it creates a sense of belonging as it brings them all together, especially in times of cultural or political threats from other countries.

  Acquiring useful and practical skills is yet another factor that contributes in making mandatory military service influential for the society. Military personnel and Veterans gain a lot of experience and skills through the intensive trainings they receive in the army. According to Veterans Employment Toolkit Handout (2012), numerous positive outcomes result from military service such as leadership skills like taking responsibility for self and actions, being disciplined, having the abilities to meet a variety of challenges, technical skills, interpersonal skills, and improved positive skills. Furthermore, individuals acquire skills beyond these skills like “teamwork, responsibility, initiative, stress management, diversity, and global awareness” (Connectus, 2018). Therefore, the military service provides the individuals with both technical and life skills.

Opponents of having an obligatory military service claim that compulsory conscription interferes with other forms of education and future careers of young adults as the mandatory military service usually recruit young men aged 18-29 who are at the peak of their learning abilities. Further, they assert that such delay holds up their future pursuit for higher education and careers affecting their human capital investments. However, this claim is proven inefficient as it has been highlighted that performing military service helps young people mature, serves as a bridge to their adulthood, and promotes their personal growth. Paula S. Fass, PhD, history Professor Emerita at UC Berkeley advocates that young people should be obligated to complete two years of military service by saying “We, as a society, need these services. I would argue that young Americans would be given a sense of maturity and competence by providing them.” Furthermore, Isabel V. Sawhill, PhD, Senior Fellow in Economic Studies at the Brookings Institution also added that “Participants would gain real world skills that will help them for the rest of their lives.” Finally, “Military service can be seen as an interruption of life, but also as an opportunity for experiencing new social settings and for acquiring skills” (Dar & Kimhi, 2001). Therefore, many countries are making their military service to be compulsory.

A compulsory military conscription is a more convenient option to countries as it helps in uniting the society, providing useful skills to individuals and helping young people mature. Whether nations should have a compulsory military service or a volunteering service will always remain a controversial matter; however, nations should be aware of the numerous advantages of compulsory military service such as eliminating the sense of classism and enhancing interpersonal skills which will improve societies.

 Marina Ayman – 182253