On Army and Conscription

Nothing else but the civic liberty is forced upon a nation for the purposes of supposedly forming a force of deterrence shall give of the modern and current generation the feeling that such coercion by law is none other but a nuisance and liability. Such feelings of dissent is only apparent when each individual finds the enforcement of this law or pertaining laws be abused by those directly employed by contract by the association in regard. Also, that the so-called enforcers of the law or laws pertaining only pretend to be loyal enforcers but do, in fact, so only because the law says it necessitates so causes irritation to those unwillingly bound by that law or laws pertaining. This law or laws pertaining is that of conscription. Let us first look at arguments of support for and dissent against conscription in smaller nations before deciding on a compromise or solution to the issue of conscription, starting from the most fundamental level.

Countries of a smaller geographical size has its limits in natural resources and land space for economic and population growth. As such, the issue of limited natural resources for the purposes of either boosting the economy of its country or creating a self-sustaining export-based economy of such resources or both and the like is countered by the increase of incentive for foreign investments. The economy, rather than depending on natural resources, is transformed into a port or base for global or international investment – a global business hub. Of such countries this is what they solely depend on. Its government, then, cannot expect that all business people become permanent residents – let alone citizens – of the country since most come for business trips. However, in having limited space, and therefore limited number of people wanting to give birth and contribute to a relatively dense land, the government would give incentives to those of business to stay as it would increase its human resources. This in turn provides greater service to the business hub as more services and goods are available for trade and, in turn, creates more jobs for the economy and the people within. In doing so, making a whole economy dependent upon foreign talent and investment, the government necessitates conscription as the nation is too vulnerable to global unrests or crises and the like. That is, if such things were to arise, the nation’s economy shall be severely jeopardized and create a diminution in the national morale. Then, if war breaks out ever so coincidentally, the nations shall become mostly mentally prepared and sound for deterring prospective threats to the country itself. Therefore conscription is necessary. This is the support for the law or laws associated with conscription.

Yet, it is argued that the act of greater international diplomacy and association shall bring the necessity for conscription to a halt, such that a small privatized, but well-trained, army shall suffice to deter international threats. While this may be sound, that is to have the economy attached to all strategic but major business hubs of the world and have political association with strong nations, we learn from history that even nations cannot fully trust a simple political association of mutual contentment. This is because in times of war, the livelihoods of its own people are put as first priority, and so unless the small nation has a major or significant enough financial places in the foreign nation’s economy, political association by mutual contentment can be regarded as miscommunication or untrustworthy. Therefore, the argument from strategic financial globalization stands better against the need for conscription.

One must still recognize, however, that financial international relations are predicated of political manipulation and decision. Which is to say, if a foreign nation’s government decides that dependency on a nation which is at the brink or already engaging of war is unsustainable, that government will implement such policies to deter such relations from a nation at war? This condition of abandonment depends on if the foreign government of interest finds an alternate direction for its local economy to travel on, such that the lives of the nation are not affected but simply altered. Such still also relies on the condition that such changes do not affect its political votes for the next election, since the people of that foreign nation may want to stay financially related for moral, ethical, or financial reasons – that of internal acts of diplomacy and electoral management. For if the government, in acting for the interests of the people, the people may believe there is government indecision or worsening in financial management relations. This affects the outcome of future elections in funding for campaigns and advertising.

Therefore, the un-necessity of conscription stands if the following conditions are met. The local economy, whether significantly or somewhat managed by the local government, must have strong financial hold in a foreign economy which has that nation as a prime contributor to its economy. People within the foreign economy must also necessarily want to stay friendly to the local economy mentioned on the above so that even if there were no strong hold from one to the other in financial relation, there is social coercion to cause government not to break the relationship. Finally, that whether there is support within the foreign nation or not, that the economy cannot ever so easily change its dependency unto another nation of their interest.

Let us now get to the more personal level.

When people are forced to sacrifice their civic liberty and enforce a coerced sense of civic aggregation and are still met with pretenders for the laws pertaining to the army, they become unsatisfied as they see uncivil people having authority over them and abusing a relatively lawful and fair system. How could such people derive morale from abusers of the law? For if there was conscription, of which conscription is forcefully engaging the people in the national defence, and conscription enacted for national defence of the nation and its people, and since those conscripted are the people themselves, then anyone hired by contract under the army must necessarily act in accordance to the interests of those forcefully conscripted. Yet, if these regulars do not do so, but act in accordance to each of their own interests, then conscripted personnel have no morale to defend the nation at all, as they see the army as a self-determining entity that is ever so engrossed with narcissism – disregarding its primary purpose of its existence. That is, to men of the ground, if those employed by the army cannot even interpret the law as a function of serving its people and therefore all conscripted people, then conscripted soldiers too do not see primary purpose in developing their self’s sense of fairness or respecting the laws pertaining to that of the army and conscription. Thus, the condition to be met here is the reduction of pretension within the army and to enforcement of laws or directives to deter internal corruption.

If pretension was to occur vividly in front of those conscripted, and the local is unsustainable if unrest were to arise if war at its brink, conscripted soldiers find no meaning in fighting anyway. It would be fighting a losing battle in the end, so the soldiers (or inclusive of his/her family) only concentrate on methods to escape the country’s legal liabilities and conscription. If the above were not met, let us not talk even of nationalism and patriotism.