In this week’s Europe Dispatch, Minna Ålander looks at the question of obligatory military service and what the existing conscription systems – and their social acceptability – look like in the Nordic
Countries with small population may not really have a choice. But there are serious downsides to conscription. A really long conscription (for a few years) is not economically and politically feasible in a democratic society, at least absent universally recognized acute external threat (like, say, in South Korea). And short conscription (several months to a year) does not provide time for really serious training (at best, at all times a large proportion of the force is not yet fully trained). In this sense the US model of 4-year contracts is much more effective, as it means that some three quarters of the force at any time are more experienced than any conscript in Europe. Then there's an issue of motivation. All members of the US military are there because they actually want to be there, at least for the time being. Many (if not most) conscripts would rather be elsewhere.
It’s easy to assume that conscripts are unmotivated. But that’s actually not the case for example in the Nordic countries. In Norway they even have the luxury problem that more people would like to do the service than they can absorb. And that’s my point about the social contract: you have to make the case for the military service and make it a motivating experience because otherwise it’s not tenable in the long run.
Of course, the issue of motivation is not universal. But for bigger countries far from any potential threat it may be a problem, especially in societies with generally lower levels of trust. It helps a lot that Nordic countries have very low levels of corruption and generally high trust in government. In the USSR/Russia quite a few conscripts ended up working on generals' dachas.
A standing army/reservists are obviously very important element for any European military especially the Nordic-Baltic 8. And Poland.
But in 2025 I’m actually more interested in each country’s inventory of missiles, drones, air defence and Air Force. I’d be interested in knowing each country’s level of readiness for an air war like the current Iran-Israel one.
Thanks, Minna, interesting as usual! I've long thought it would be nice to have some kind of mandatory 12 month (?) social service for post high school age youth in the US, both sexes, with the military as one of the options (AmeriCorps and other possibilities similar to the Depression era Civilian Conservation Corps and the WPA being on the menu as well). This might help with the long standing military recruiting problem. Importantly, this also would provide a much needed glue for our increasingly atomized society. But of course at the present perilous moment, this would actually be a very bad idea.
I think it is possible to over-learn the apparent lessons of the Ukraine war. Due to lack of sufficient modern air power, the Ukrainians were forced to fight, for a while, a manpower intensive landwar. But even they are moving away from this model and substituting/complementing with drones the lack of sufficient airpower and manpower.
If Ukraine had more modern air power and longer range heavy munitions in the beginning if the war, the Kerch bridge and any other logistic asset would not be standing. The Russians would not have been able to build the railway from rostov to Mariupol. Supplying the large Russian armies would have been impossible. What happened in n Kherson would have happened in other theaters - sustaining large forces in n the field with long logistic lines would have been impossible for the Russians.
It might be more effective for European armies to simply expand their air forces and professional armies instead of experimenting with large numbers of hastily trained conscripts.
An excellent conversation starter for ten, one that I am sure is being conducted right across NATO. It makes sense for smaller nations to implement conscription but for a country with a large population and small professional military these, initially, should prioritise their training capabilities. When a crisis arises and a country has to mobilise, it can only do that if it has the capability to train and equip its citizens. Most large NATO nations only have training capabilities to maintain their small professional forces. So in the short term this must be a priority as they implement more robust, gradual increases to their standing forces.
Israel, a small country, seems to have an effective method of maintaining military readiness. Don’t know the details, I assume some form of conscription and reserves. Possibly a model for European countries?
I think it’s mandatory military service for most members of society, both male and female. And I think you’re right that they all become reservists if they don’t stay with the military after fulfilling their service requirement.
as it is surely about to become a major issue of public debate in most European countries.
And there is definitely movement: yesterday I heard that Denmark was making conscription mandatory for women(it used to be only voluntary) and extending its length from
4 to 11 months as of this autumn. In Germany the SPD is set to debate the issue at its party conference next week and the mood music seems to be that conscription will be reintroduced in the next few years. France has not yet even gone that far but there is a scheme to introduce all young people to military matters - but only over a few days.
One can’t help feeling that in a few year’s time, there will be far more young people joining the military or the military reserves, especially in those countries that have only just started giving the issue serious consideration. As always, a major social and cultural shift of this kind will take some time to embed itself in the body politic and attract the necessary organisation and funding.
Indeed, Denmark is expanding conscription both in terms of applicability and duration. Reflects the Zeitgeist… in the German case I remain sceptical until I hear a serious and realistic suggestion that doesn’t imply that simply bringing back conscription would solve all Germany’s problems, from manpower shortage to lack of societal cohesion.
Hey Phillips! It's been a long time. I subscribe to the Atlantic Monthly, and saw your June article. Actually, I picked up on the story headline, and remember thinking "this is great." That was before I saw your bio at the end of the piece, and I'm all like "I know that guy!"
After your semester in Scotland, I remember you describing haggis to a few of us. We were horrified, as I recall.
Anyway, I do have a thought on this topic...I read "About Face" by David Hackworth (for those who might not know, this guy was one of America's great warriors of all time. He convinced a local itinerant to pretend to be his father to sign for him, and lied about his age to get into the army at age 15. Supposedly he's part of the inspiration for Kurtz in Apocalypse Now).
His point about this was that it's good to have draftees in the military. Lifers and volunteers want to be there, but draftees don't usually care about their career progression. So they're more willing to say stuff like "no sir, that's a stupid fucking idea, and I'm not going to die for your stupid fucking idea."
Oh wow, never thought to read about construction related to Du contrat social by Rousseau. Well, in my country the Netherlands conscription is not even on the political agenda. And I don't think that the volonté generale leans to reintroducing conscription. We're still in the stage of seeing air defense and so many militairy and navy reaching headlines for the upcoming NATO top. I'm more a Hobbes type with a dim view on human nature.
Excellent primer on a topic I was completely unaware of. Much more complex than I would have thought. Thank you!
Countries with small population may not really have a choice. But there are serious downsides to conscription. A really long conscription (for a few years) is not economically and politically feasible in a democratic society, at least absent universally recognized acute external threat (like, say, in South Korea). And short conscription (several months to a year) does not provide time for really serious training (at best, at all times a large proportion of the force is not yet fully trained). In this sense the US model of 4-year contracts is much more effective, as it means that some three quarters of the force at any time are more experienced than any conscript in Europe. Then there's an issue of motivation. All members of the US military are there because they actually want to be there, at least for the time being. Many (if not most) conscripts would rather be elsewhere.
It’s easy to assume that conscripts are unmotivated. But that’s actually not the case for example in the Nordic countries. In Norway they even have the luxury problem that more people would like to do the service than they can absorb. And that’s my point about the social contract: you have to make the case for the military service and make it a motivating experience because otherwise it’s not tenable in the long run.
Of course, the issue of motivation is not universal. But for bigger countries far from any potential threat it may be a problem, especially in societies with generally lower levels of trust. It helps a lot that Nordic countries have very low levels of corruption and generally high trust in government. In the USSR/Russia quite a few conscripts ended up working on generals' dachas.
Thanks Minna.
A standing army/reservists are obviously very important element for any European military especially the Nordic-Baltic 8. And Poland.
But in 2025 I’m actually more interested in each country’s inventory of missiles, drones, air defence and Air Force. I’d be interested in knowing each country’s level of readiness for an air war like the current Iran-Israel one.
Thanks, Minna, interesting as usual! I've long thought it would be nice to have some kind of mandatory 12 month (?) social service for post high school age youth in the US, both sexes, with the military as one of the options (AmeriCorps and other possibilities similar to the Depression era Civilian Conservation Corps and the WPA being on the menu as well). This might help with the long standing military recruiting problem. Importantly, this also would provide a much needed glue for our increasingly atomized society. But of course at the present perilous moment, this would actually be a very bad idea.
I think it is possible to over-learn the apparent lessons of the Ukraine war. Due to lack of sufficient modern air power, the Ukrainians were forced to fight, for a while, a manpower intensive landwar. But even they are moving away from this model and substituting/complementing with drones the lack of sufficient airpower and manpower.
If Ukraine had more modern air power and longer range heavy munitions in the beginning if the war, the Kerch bridge and any other logistic asset would not be standing. The Russians would not have been able to build the railway from rostov to Mariupol. Supplying the large Russian armies would have been impossible. What happened in n Kherson would have happened in other theaters - sustaining large forces in n the field with long logistic lines would have been impossible for the Russians.
It might be more effective for European armies to simply expand their air forces and professional armies instead of experimenting with large numbers of hastily trained conscripts.
An excellent conversation starter for ten, one that I am sure is being conducted right across NATO. It makes sense for smaller nations to implement conscription but for a country with a large population and small professional military these, initially, should prioritise their training capabilities. When a crisis arises and a country has to mobilise, it can only do that if it has the capability to train and equip its citizens. Most large NATO nations only have training capabilities to maintain their small professional forces. So in the short term this must be a priority as they implement more robust, gradual increases to their standing forces.
Thank you, Minna.
Yes, re-introducing conscription is a real problem for many European countries. It will be solved when Russia invades the Baltics.
But the goal is to build up sufficient visible military strength so that Russia will be convinced not to invade the Baltics.
Flying drones and getting fit should be an easy sell to young men in 2025
Israel, a small country, seems to have an effective method of maintaining military readiness. Don’t know the details, I assume some form of conscription and reserves. Possibly a model for European countries?
I think it’s mandatory military service for most members of society, both male and female. And I think you’re right that they all become reservists if they don’t stay with the military after fulfilling their service requirement.
Thanks for raising this important issue,
as it is surely about to become a major issue of public debate in most European countries.
And there is definitely movement: yesterday I heard that Denmark was making conscription mandatory for women(it used to be only voluntary) and extending its length from
4 to 11 months as of this autumn. In Germany the SPD is set to debate the issue at its party conference next week and the mood music seems to be that conscription will be reintroduced in the next few years. France has not yet even gone that far but there is a scheme to introduce all young people to military matters - but only over a few days.
One can’t help feeling that in a few year’s time, there will be far more young people joining the military or the military reserves, especially in those countries that have only just started giving the issue serious consideration. As always, a major social and cultural shift of this kind will take some time to embed itself in the body politic and attract the necessary organisation and funding.
Indeed, Denmark is expanding conscription both in terms of applicability and duration. Reflects the Zeitgeist… in the German case I remain sceptical until I hear a serious and realistic suggestion that doesn’t imply that simply bringing back conscription would solve all Germany’s problems, from manpower shortage to lack of societal cohesion.
Conscription works if people think of themselves as defending the country.
If you're using your army to invade foreign countries, conscription is most likely to lead to the overthrow of your government.
Hey Phillips! It's been a long time. I subscribe to the Atlantic Monthly, and saw your June article. Actually, I picked up on the story headline, and remember thinking "this is great." That was before I saw your bio at the end of the piece, and I'm all like "I know that guy!"
After your semester in Scotland, I remember you describing haggis to a few of us. We were horrified, as I recall.
Anyway, I do have a thought on this topic...I read "About Face" by David Hackworth (for those who might not know, this guy was one of America's great warriors of all time. He convinced a local itinerant to pretend to be his father to sign for him, and lied about his age to get into the army at age 15. Supposedly he's part of the inspiration for Kurtz in Apocalypse Now).
His point about this was that it's good to have draftees in the military. Lifers and volunteers want to be there, but draftees don't usually care about their career progression. So they're more willing to say stuff like "no sir, that's a stupid fucking idea, and I'm not going to die for your stupid fucking idea."
Oh wow, never thought to read about construction related to Du contrat social by Rousseau. Well, in my country the Netherlands conscription is not even on the political agenda. And I don't think that the volonté generale leans to reintroducing conscription. We're still in the stage of seeing air defense and so many militairy and navy reaching headlines for the upcoming NATO top. I'm more a Hobbes type with a dim view on human nature.