LAU: Canadians should reject suggestion of mandatory military service

Article content

According to a recent Angus Reid poll, Canadians overwhelmingly support imposing a year of “mandatory service” on those under the age of 30. This high support is consistent for mandatory service in public health support (74%), environmental support (73%), youth services (72%) and civil protection, such as disaster response or firefighting (70%). For a year of military service, the public is split — 43% support, 44% against (12% unsure).  

First, a caution. What polls seem to show can vary significantly based on how the question is posed. The preamble to the survey questions began by saying that in some countries — such as Sweden, Norway and South Korea — young adults must complete “national service.” Had Angus Reid given Algeria, Russia and Sudan as examples of countries with mandatory national service, the poll results might be quite different.  

But that’s beside the point. Whatever the actual public support for “mandatory service,” it’s a bad idea in Canada. And ironically, if it were imposed by the government, its most justifiable form is the one with the lowest public support. The military is the only item on the list that’s clearly a government responsibility. Yet, even for the military, the argument for mandatory service fails.  

Indeed, the United States, a country with a decidedly more active military, debated mandatory military service more than 50 years ago — and decided in favour of voluntary service.  

Back in 1968, Richard Nixon campaigned in the presidential election to end military conscription. Shortly after becoming president, he struck a commission of 15 people to advise on the issue. The commission began evenly divided, with five avowed proponents of conscription, five avowed opponents, and five who were undecided. However, less than a year later, the commission issued a 211-page report with a unanimous recommendation: end conscription.  

There was a famous moment in the debate when General William Westmoreland, chief of staff of the U.S. Army, appeared before the commission to explain his support for the military draft. He preferred mandatory enlistment over the government having to pay higher wages for people to enlist, he said, because “I do not want to command an army of mercenaries.”  

Economist Milton Friedman, a member of the commission, famously replied: “General, would you rather command an army of slaves?” If Americans who decided to enlist and were paid for their services were mercenaries, Friedman argued, “Then I, sir, am a mercenary professor, and you, sir, are a mercenary general; we are served by mercenary physicians, we use a mercenary lawyer and we get our meat from a mercenary butcher.”  

Friedman, an opponent of conscription, explained in a New York Times essay that a voluntary force would be more militarily effective because then the military would be manned by people who wanted to be there and who were well-suited for the role. It would enhance freedom for all. And it was good economics. Government dictating how labour is used, whether for the military or another purpose, leads to all sorts of awful allocation decisions.  

By 1973, the military draft in the U.S. was gone. It was simply a bad idea. And so is mandatory national service in Canada today — whether for the military, the environment, elderly care or youth tutoring programs. It would diminish freedom and make us poorer.  

Matthew Lau is an adjunct scholar with the Fraser Institute