National service
Calls for a return to military service is a recurring theme every few years, with many believing it to be a cure for many problems in today’s society. Robin Horsfall ponders whether or not they are right
Could the re-introduction of compulsory military service benefit today’s society?
British National Service began with an Act of Parliament of the same name in 1948. The subsequent wars, such as Malaya, Korea, Borneo and the Cold War made it necessary to maintain a strong defence capability without the immense costs of a large standing army, navy and air force. All fit young men were eligible for a ‘call up’ at the age of 18 for two years of military service. This could be deferred if the conscript was in a preferred and important job, such as mining or in higher education at university. To many, national service was considered a ‘rite of passage’ from boyhood to manhood. The time away from home, combined with the adversity, was believed to develop strong character.
Today, many people believe that a ‘strong dose’ of military service is just what the youth of today needs. The upside of national service was that it brought young people together from many lifestyles. People of different religions, cultures, classes and nationalities were forced to live and work together. 12-men barrack blocks offered very little privacy and nowhere to hide.
“RUSSIA STILL HAS COMPULSORY MILITARY SERVICE, WHICH MEANS THAT IT HAS THE ABILITY TO MOBILISE A LARGE, TRAINED, CONVENTIONAL FORCE IN A VERY SHORT TIME”
They were taught how to look after themselves, while personal hygiene, tidiness and cleanliness were imposed with draconian punishments for those who failed to come up to standard – there was no right of appeal. Men learned to work as a team to prevent punishment and raised their standards to the required level. The enemy were the regular army NCOS – full-time soldiers who lived the military life. Many of them thought national servicemen were inferior and a waste of their time.
This attitude from the regulars, most of whom considered themselves ‘war veterans’, was very much the downside. Young men with great potential were often humiliated and abused by mindless bullies for a large part of their two years. Much of the training was endless repetition combined with long periods of intense boredom. Low wages and limited access to local bars and clubs made many servicemen resent their service.
It has been claimed by contemporary psychologists that military service at a young age could be detrimental to a person’s mental health. I have to disagree, but I do understand the reason for such thinking. If we return to my previous comments about mindless abuse, then it is understandable to consider such programs damaging. What does cause mental health problems among young people in the modern world is lack of agency, poor role models and boredom.
In the 1960s and 1970s, thousands of young boys who were failing at school volunteered for the Boys Brigades or Junior Military Service.
They were all volunteers and considered the military a good opportunity to gain a trade or career. Junior soldiers received continued education, skills, apprenticeships, leadership training and teaching skills – all of course combined with intense military training. I was one of those young men, joining at the age of 15 in 1972. I am still in contact with many of those I joined up with, and I am not aware that any of them suffered psychological problems that they can link to their early training. Of my former fellow servicemen, two are majors, one is a captain, one an RSM of the SAS, two are university graduates and another a lord mayor.
The call for national service could be a positive one, if the negative aspects of the past are removed and the positive aspects retained. Modern national service could once again be a rite of passage from childhood to adulthood if the two years are combined with continued education and vocational skills training.
The United Kingdom desperately needs tradesmen, engineers, teachers, sportsmen, administrators, drivers and many other listed skills. If the two years combined military training with the acquisition of qualifications it would be attractive to the majority and easy to sell. By producing these skilled workers, national service could not be considered an expense, but more of an investment.
There would also be the added bonus of acquiring a large reserve military that could be called upon in a crisis. Russia still has compulsory military service, which means that it has the ability to mobilise a large, trained, conventional force in a very short time. The United Kingdom is not currently capable of resisting such a force.
It should be possible to introduce a ‘non military option’ that followed the same format as the military option but with emphasis on environmental care, medical services, public duty, care for the elderly and other activities to substitute for the military training. In this system, those with physical disabilities or a conflict of conscience would still be able to complete their commitment.
For a return to national service to be successful, it would have to be universal and compulsory, without exception. It would need to take the participants away from their homes and peer groups, and it would have to retain them for sufficient time to achieve their aims and qualifications. Wages would be low and facilities basic, but the true pay would be in obtaining qualifications and the positive experiences of sharing life with others – it would be a true rite of passage to becoming a valued member of society. A modern national service could be the skills centre for the nation, the engine for future prosperity and a place where those who are unsuitable for academia can flourish and become the successful middle classes of the next generation. I support a return to national service if it is done well and done for the benefit of both the nation and the individual.