Military Service

[GGT]

Poll. Add your opinions, discuss your thoughts.




The result might be more people demanding we avoid War, conflicts, occupations, nation building, etc.

Especially if the Draft included women. Then DADT might be a moot point?

I'm not sure if Americans would agree to a mandatory service like other countries do....we already have arguments about the government interfering with our freedoms.



Hell, I clicked on the title to edit, and lost the poll.

1) Reinstate the Draft
2) Mandatory two year service for all citizens
3) Both 1 and 2
4) None of the above--keep it voluntary

[Loki]

Interestingly enough, I'm doing a research paper on a topic closely related to this. Countries that have larger militaries are actually far more likely than others to fight wars, and countries that sharply increase the size of their militaries in a short period of time are even more likely to go to war in the near future. Conscription increases the resources available to the military, which militarizes foreign policy. It also makes it tempting to use the larger military, because the resources have already been spent. Other countries tend to feel more threatened by policy disagreements with a militarized state, which further increases the chance that a dispute will escalate to a war. In general, sharp increases in the number of soldiers increases the chance of war within 2 years by 110% (that's a preliminary finding).

In the American context, the people who are most affected by conscription (18-21-year-olds) have a very low voter turnout, and that group is not uniformly against being sent to war anyway. I reran my model to only look at the US. Sharp increases in the size of the military historically increased the chance of the US fighting a war within 2 years by 290% (again, a preliminary finding). For the Fuzzies out there, all the independent variables were lagged several years, so I'm not capturing military increases that are carried out in preparation for an immediate war or an ongoing war.

[wiggin]

Interestingly enough, I'm doing a research paper on a topic closely related to this. Countries that have larger militaries are actually far more likely than others to fight wars, and countries that sharply increase the size of their militaries in a short period of time are even more likely to go to war in the near future. Conscription increases the resources available to the military, which militarizes foreign policy. It also makes it tempting to use the larger military, because the resources have already been spent. Other countries tend to feel more threatened by policy disagreements with a militarized state, which further increases the chance that a dispute will escalate to a war. In general, sharp increases in the number of soldiers increases the chance of war within 2 years by 110% (that's a preliminary finding).

In the American context, the people who are most affected by conscription (18-21-year-olds) have a very low voter turnout, and that group is not uniformly against being sent to war anyway. I reran my model to only look at the US. Sharp increases in the size of the military historically increased the chance of the US fighting a war within 2 years by 290% (again, a preliminary finding). For the Fuzzies out there, all the independent variables were lagged several years, so I'm not capturing military increases that are carried out in preparation for an immediate war or an ongoing war.

You're going to have to prove this isn't a correlation but a genuine causation, chum. I mean I agree that a large military is more likely to result in military solutions being pursued, but don't you think it just as likely that a growing military is a rational response to an increasingly unstable political climate? That is, a country feels the threat of war from another state is growing, so they increase the size of their military. Then, as predicted, the war happens.

On other points people have made: conscripts are not necessarily poor quality military material - in fact, in some cases, they may be of better average fitness and acuity than a professional force (given that compensation in professional militaries tends to be lower than the private sector). Given adequate training and motivation, conscripts can be just as good or better than a professional force. The motivation generally needs to be patriotic and esprit de corps, and the training needs to be comprehensive (generally the real threat to most conscript armies). The motivation part wouldn't work particularly well in America right now, but it isn't in principle difficult to do.

On a practical level, some governments don't need as many soldiers as they get through universal conscription (even with generous deferments and exemptions). The obvious solution is a universal conscription lottery or a strong civil service alternative with incentives for combat roles. Additionally, the actual service period beyond training can be minimal and limited largely to a small professional force supported by extensive, frequently trained reserves. The real challenge is investing adequate money to keep the force in decent shape without spending too large a portion of the economy.

[Loki]

You're going to have to prove this isn't a correlation but a genuine causation, chum. I mean I agree that a large military is more likely to result in military solutions being pursued, but don't you think it just as likely that a growing military is a rational response to an increasingly unstable political climate? That is, a country feels the threat of war from another state is growing, so they increase the size of their military. Then, as predicted, the war happens.

I control for the main factors that cause militarization, which is to say that it has a significant effect even with those factors in the model. I also used a Heckman model (which accounts for self-selection) in an earlier draft, and it produced similar results. So yes, countries that are in a hostile environment do tend to increase the size of their military, but that increase affects the probability of war beyond the factors that cause it. Since the independent variables are lagged several years, I also don't capture the militarization that takes place right before a war.

I just did a simple crosstab for the growing military variable and probability of war in 2 years for Israel. In about 40% of the sample, either Israel or its neighbor (or both) decrease the size of their military. In those years, the chance of war (within the 2 years) is 90% lower than in the rest of the sample. I then looked at the opposite angle, to see what happens when either Israel or its neighbor increase the size of their military by a large amount. When that occurs, the probability of war goes up 4.5 times.

On other points people have made: conscripts are not necessarily poor quality military material - in fact, in some cases, they may be of better average fitness and acuity than a professional force (given that compensation in professional militaries tends to be lower than the private sector). Given adequate training and motivation, conscripts can be just as good or better than a professional force.

If the two receive an equal amount of training in a given year, surely the professional soldiers, who stay in uniform for much longer, would be far better? Furthermore, professional soldiers want to be soldiers, which is not something that can be said for conscripts (if they wanted to be soldiers, they wouldn't be conscripts in countries that have both systems, and at least a portion are bound to oppose serving in any country). So sure, if the stars align perfectly, conscripts can be as good as professional soldiers, but you're expecting everything possible to go wrong with the professionals and everything possible to go right with the conscripts.

[earthJoker]

Intresting, similar arguments is used by the SVP and FDP in favour of the current system we have. They want to have an army which is build on man that are integrated into society.

In the American context, the people who are most affected by conscription (18-21-year-olds) have a very low voter turnout, and that group is not uniformly against being sent to war anyway.

And that's probably why the SVP is against the Durchdiener concept (serving the whole service at once) in opposite to the usual service (24 weeks at once and then 3 weeks every year).

IMO we should get rid of the draft, it is a huge impact of the freedom of the citizens during the service period that cannot be justified by the current political situation (neither in Europe nor in the US).

[termite]

Based on anecdotal evidence I'd say that since you get the army you deserve I would be against conscription except when in dire need.

People who choose a military career tend to resent the bastards that are forced to don the uniform and march in straight lines against their will, I can't imagine that relationship would improve in battle conditions.

[Loki]

Based on anecdotal evidence I'd say that since you get the army you deserve I would be against conscription except when in dire need.

People who choose a military career tend to resent the bastards that are forced to don the uniform and march in straight lines against their will, I can't imagine that relationship would improve in battle conditions.

That's a good point. Conscripts generally weaken combat effectiveness and morale. They're useful only if you're fighting an existential war or need a giant occupying force.

[Khendraja'aro]

That's a good point. Conscripts generally weaken combat effectiveness and morale. They're useful only if you're fighting an existential war or need a giant occupying force.

The German Bundeswehr has more conscripts than they know what to do with them beyond basic training.

For example: One conscript was told to watch a telephone. After two weeks, when they moved some furniture, they discovered that the damn thing wasn't even plugged in.

[GGT]

Countries that have larger militaries are actually far more likely than others to fight wars, and countries that sharply increase the size of their militaries in a short period of time are even more likely to go to war in the near future.

What about economic impacts? Like during deep recessions when lower income people might be "desperate" enough to join? I don't have data but seem to recall articles showing an increase in sign-ups during hard economic times....

[Loki]

What about economic impacts? Like during deep recessions when lower income people might be "desperate" enough to join? I don't have data but seem to recall articles showing an increase in sign-ups during hard economic times....

There are several studies showing that increasing the number of soldiers significantly decreases medium term economic growth. The military is expensive. Money that's going to the military is money that's not going to education, research, healthcare, etc. The only countries that didn't see a decrease in GDP after a military buildup are those that received their hardware from "patrons". Boosting military spending can increase GDP in the short-term, but that's a function of increased government spending. You can get the same boost from paying men to dig up holes.

[Ominous Gamer]

Some sort of mandatory at home service for all citizens could create some damn interesting results in America. I'm not talking about anything major, but some sort of strict organization thats there in case of disasters or community need. Something like ROTC, but isn't ridiculously stupid. Might do wonders for most Americans' sense of self-entitlement, and you end up with a population that at least has a known set of skills and knowledge. Good luck funding something like this.
Sending soldiers overseas to fight in a "war" like we have now should be completely voluntary.

[termite]

Some sort of mandatory at home service for all citizens could create some damn interesting results in America. I'm not talking about anything major, but some sort of strict organization thats there in case of disasters or community need. Something like ROTC, but isn't ridiculously stupid.
Sending soldiers overseas to fight in a "war" like we have now should be completely voluntary.

Interesting idea, a military like organisation that doesn't go to war - you're an Eagle Scout aren't you?

[Ominous Gamer]

Interesting idea, a military like organisation that doesn't go to war - you're an Eagle Scout aren't you?

That obvious is it?

[Nessus]

Some sort of mandatory at home service for all citizens could create some damn interesting results in America. I'm not talking about anything major, but some sort of strict organization thats there in case of disasters or community need. Something like ROTC, but isn't ridiculously stupid. Might do wonders for most Americans' sense of self-entitlement, and you end up with a population that at least has a known set of skills and knowledge. Good luck funding something like this.
Sending soldiers overseas to fight in a "war" like we have now should be completely voluntary.

Every Murikan to serve at least 18 months in retail

[littlelolligagged]

I would assume there would be an increase in 18-21 year olds leaving the country and getting student deferments.

And civil disobedience. It would be glorious. The lack of a draft has a lot to do with the apathy toward our current military entanglements.

[GGT]

It wasn't until 1972 that 18 year olds could vote, and Vietnam had its draw down in '73, so those broad "youth" stats are a bit skewed. At least as far as my question goes...

[Loki]

The point is that 18-year-olds had the right to vote in the '72 election and yet didn't really do so. The ones that did vote didn't vote against Nixon.

[GGT]

Loki, based on that data---what should we expect from Afghanistan, after we've helped them build an army?

[Loki]

According to the data, the probability of war starts to really climb once more than ~1% of the population is under arms (or about 250,000 for Afghanistan I believe). Though I hesitate to apply general data to specific cases. On the other hand, Iran and Pakistan are substantially stronger than Afghanistan, which reduces the chance of them fighting a war, and Uzbekistan and Tajikistan have very small armies, which reduces the chance of war on that front. I think Afghanistan should be more concerned with internal chaos than with external enemies (though those external enemies do their best to maintain the internal chaos).

[GGT]

Just curious how you view the two sides of the sword. A) Strong military as deterrent to conflict B) Growing military that may lead to more conflict

In there is the Why or the cause that must matter. (Not just for your paper but this thread.) When I say volunteers join up during bad times, increasing troop size, it doesn't necessarily follow that policy changes or escalates. At least not for the US (?)

But we've been in two wars, for nearly ten years; troops are being deployed too often, using the same groups over and over can't be good for health or morale. Part of that is because our volunteer military wasn't growing to keep up with all our 'interventions' around the world. News talks about recent US recruits joining for economic reasons. We even use the same thing to attract Afghanis to join their police or army---money.

[Loki]

Just curious how you view the two sides of the sword. A) Strong military as deterrent to conflict B) Growing military that may lead to more conflict

People have been working on deterrence theory since the '50s. No one's been able to find convincing proof that it actually works. In general, the only way increasing your military leads to peace is if you become substantially more powerful than your adversary as a result. If that's not likely to occur, then the buildup will usually lead to the opposite outcome. When push comes to shove, the main reason for a large military isn't to avoid wars - it's to win them.

In there is the Why or the cause that must matter. (Not just for your paper but this thread.) When I say volunteers join up during bad times, increasing troop size, it doesn't necessarily follow that policy changes or escalates. At least not for the US (?)

But volunteers can't just join...the military must be asking for volunteers.

But we've been in two wars, for nearly ten years; troops are being deployed too often, using the same groups over and over can't be good for health or morale. Part of that is because our volunteer military wasn't growing to keep up with all our 'interventions' around the world. News talks about recent US recruits joining for economic reasons. We even use the same thing to attract Afghanis to join their police or army---money.

Let's put it like this, if we weren't being stretched thin in Iraq and Afghanistan, do you think our chances of invading Iran would be higher or lower?

[GGT]

People have been working on deterrence theory since the '50s. No one's been able to find convincing proof that it actually works. In general, the only way increasing your military leads to peace is if you become substantially more powerful than your adversary as a result. If that's not likely to occur, then the buildup will usually lead to the opposite outcome. When push comes to shove, the main reason for a large military isn't to avoid wars - it's to win them.

That means China will......invade someone? Then there's weapons escalation, even in countries with small military. Or rag-tag militias with guns and grenades, nothing organized or sanctioned, that can "militarize" whole regions. Terrorists can "draft" villagers into their civil wars, especially by using economic desperation to their benefit. Uhm, we have a small scale of that going on in US border states right now, arming themselves to keep illegal workers or drug cartels out.

But volunteers can't just join...the military must be asking for volunteers.

Has the US stopped recruiting? Armed Services still shows up at career and job fairs, and universities.

Let's put it like this, if we weren't being stretched thin in Iraq and Afghanistan, do you think our chances of invading Iran would be higher or lower?

I don't know, guessing odds would be higher to invade Iran. But that sounds sloppy. Just because we'd have more available troops shouldn't mean it's a good idea to invade.

[Loki]

That means China will......invade someone? Then there's weapons escalation, even in countries with small military. Or rag-tag militias with guns and grenades, nothing organized or sanctioned, that can "militarize" whole regions. Terrorists can "draft" villagers into their civil wars, especially by using economic desperation to their benefit. Uhm, we have a small scale of that going on in US border states right now, arming themselves to keep illegal workers or drug cartels out.

This is about interstate wars, so what terrorists and loony militias do is irrelevant.

Has the US stopped recruiting? Armed Services still shows up at career and job fairs, and universities.

The US always recruits because soldiers leave/retire every year. The US, like any other country, has a quota for the number of soldiers it wants (and quotas for specific roles); it doesn't recruit past that quota.

I don't know, guessing odds would be higher to invade Iran. But that sounds sloppy. Just because we'd have more available troops shouldn't mean it's a good idea to invade.

It might not be a good idea to invade, but it's still a better idea to invade when you have available manpower than when you do not.

[agamemnus]

Countries that have larger militaries are actually far more likely than others to fight wars, and countries that sharply increase the size of their militaries in a short period of time are even more likely to go to war in the near future.

Correlation is not causation... If you consider that countries actually need to get a large military in order to believe themselves ready to win a war, it would then make sense.

[Aimless]

Wow, that sounds like a really interesting paper Loki. Are you looking at a specific time-period? Many countries? The same countries in different time-periods?

Out of curiosity, does the type of government matter? How about the economy of a country prior to a period of militarisation?

[Loki]

Wow, that sounds like a really interesting paper Loki. Are you looking at a specific time-period? Many countries? The same countries in different time-periods?

Out of curiosity, does the type of government matter? How about the economy of a country prior to a period of militarisation?

Due to data availability, it's from 1816 to 2001. I'm also splitting it up into the pre-WWI period, 1914-1945, and post-1945. The model works best in the 20th century, but still does a decent job earlier. It includes any country that passes a minimal population threshold and is recognized as being independent by I believe Britain or France (or the UN after 1945) in a given year. For instance, Sweden appears every year from 1816, while Peru only appears in 1839 and Algeria in 1962.

There's debate over whether having a democracy in even one country matters. According to my work, it matters, but not excessively so (~30% fall in the chance of war in a given year). If both countries are democratic, it falls by over 90%, and there are those who would claim it's 100% (they'd disagree with the definition of democracy used). Regarding the economy, other studies have shown that countries with a larger GDP are both more likely to have more troops (as percentage of the population) and more likely to go to war. They don't control for the level of development though (e.g. Nigeria has a larger GDP than Luxembourg). I managed to find a decent proxy for development, and it shows that as the level of development goes up, the chance of war goes down. Haven't really looked at the relationship between development and militarization.

Correlation is not causation... If you consider that countries actually need to get a large military in order to believe themselves ready to win a war, it would then make sense.

Technically speaking, one can never really prove causation. It all rests on how convincing one causal argument is versus possible alternate explanations. Since A) countries find it difficult to rapidly change troop numbers, which means it's rare for them to drastically change troop numbers several years before a war starts, and B) I ignore the period immediately preceding the war, I think the claim that this is all done in preparation for an inevitable war has no merit. Keep in mind that most wars aren't world wars, and aren't preceded by excessive preparation. Even in the case of WWII, Britain's military size only spiked in 1940, and France's in 1939. Since I'm comparing their troops numbers in 1937 to the war variable in 1939, those spikes aren't included.

Loki, is it countries with large militaries are fighting wars because they've got large militaries, or is it that countries with small militaries don't fight wars because they can't. You need a certain minimum level of capability to actually go and fight a war, after all.

I'm looking at the number of soldiers as percentage of the population, which doesn't give any advantage to large countries (if anything, it gives a slight advantage to weak ones, since once you reach a high enough number of troops, getting more is a waste). "Small" military means the 25% of observations with the lowest number of soldiers are percentage of the population, and "large" means the highest 25%. For the change variable, "small" is the 25% of observations with the lowest percentage changes in troop numbers over a three-year period (in practical terms, in means those that had net reductions in troop numbers), and "high" means the top 25%. Everything is lagged 2 years, which means I'm comparing the final troops numbers in 1920 (for example) with the existence or non-existence of a war in 1922. This avoids the increase in troop numbers that immediately precede wars. I've also done a simple analysis on when countries tend to start arming for wars, and it's the year before the war starts (on average), which means lagging everything 2 years more or less solves this problem.

Back to your point about countries with small militaries not being able to fight, that's actually part of my point. The difference is that countries choose to have militaries of that size. That means that when they get into a dispute, they pretty much rule the military option off the table. It might cost them at the negotiating table (haven't gotten around to measuring this yet, though it would certainly be an interesting topic), but it keeps disputes from escalating to violence.

As far as quantitative analysis is concerned, there's really not a difference. It tells you what happens in a particular set of circumstances *which is actually usually already known, but the refrain is "yes, but now we can prove it."* but it rarely tells you why. You effectively get to say its due to whatever seems reasonable to you. Or whoever is publishing your study. Which is why I don't hold that approach to Poli-Sci in much regard.

Better to have every person cite their own case study when making a theoretical argument and never come to a conclusion. Usual form of argument: A) my theory works and here's country x to prove it; B) but I have country y here, and it shows your argument to be wrong; A) but country y doesn't meet this self-serving set of criteria that supports my theory; B) sure it does, country y is mostly like country x; A) fine, country z also supports my point; B) but country L does not; ad nauseum. The debate usually ends when a game theorist shows that the theory lacks logic.

[Steely Glint]

I'm looking at the number of soldiers as percentage of the population, which doesn't give any advantage to large countries (if anything, it gives a slight advantage to weak ones, since once you reach a high enough number of troops, getting more is a waste).

That's an odd choice. Why not defense spending? Do you include reservists or just active personnel?

[Loki]

That's an odd choice. Why not defense spending? Do you include reservists or just active personnel?

Because I don't think defense spending captures the concept of militarization. I defer to Mullins (1987): expenditure data has the following disadvantages: replacement cycles cloud trends, defense budgets are calculated differently across time and space, inflation rates aren’t fully accounted for, and these don’t take into account arms transfers; military personnel is a better measure because: soldiers aren’t subject to radical technological change, and cross-country comparisons are much easier.

It's active personnel. I do actually have military expenditures in the current model as a kind of control (might not keep it), and its effects are very ambiguous. Plus there's a vast arms races literature, and I don't really want to get into that area.

[']['ear]

I've always been for a year of mandatory service. Or, a year of service for the right to vote.

Every Murikan to serve at least 18 months in retail

The point is that 18-year-olds had the right to vote in the '72 election and yet didn't really do so. The ones that did vote didn't vote against Nixon.

But why would they vote against Nixon? Vietnam wasn't his war. He inherited it, like Obama. Though Kennedy got the ball rolling, it is really Johnson who was to blame, both for escalating it into a real war and for botching its execution.

As far as quantitative analysis is concerned, there's really not a difference. It tells you what happens in a particular set of circumstances *which is actually usually already known, but the refrain is "yes, but now we can prove it."* but it rarely tells you why. You effectively get to say its due to whatever seems reasonable to you. Or whoever is publishing your study. Which is why I don't hold that approach to Poli-Sci in much regard.

Yes, well, heh.

[Loki]

But why would they vote against Nixon? Vietnam wasn't his war. He inherited it, like Obama. Though Kennedy got the ball rolling, it is really Johnson who was to blame, both for escalating it into a real war and for botching its execution.

It was his war by '72 and there were massive protests against him (and the war).