An Investigation into The Draft
Many countries throughout the world have mandatory military service for some sections of the population. Outside of wartime the arguments in favor of mandatory conscription tend to focus not only on the benefit to the countries defensive preparedness, but are also based almost as much on the idea that military service serves to benefit the individual draftee in terms of personal development and civic pride. This was the angle that American president and navy veteran John F Kennedy often used in his advocacy for the draft.
However, the idea of the draft also faces criticism on ethical and strategic grounds. People rarely have the opportunity to choose their citizenship, and by its very nature a draft does not take into consideration the draftees feelings about the politics of what they will be doing in their service. The ethical issue here is obvious if we imagine an "unjust" war as our example, but generally conflicts are not that morally clear cut and it is important to keep in mind the possibility of a situation in which the draft is necessary to motivate a population to fight in a just war when they would otherwise avoid out of cowardice.
There are also criticisms of the draft based on questions about its usefulness. While the draft obviously brings more monpower into a conflict, conscripts are obviously less enthusiastic about their participation in a military than are volunteers, and their presence can produce low morale and discipline which can be deadly for a state's war effort. Take for example the Soviet war in Afghanistan or the American war in Vietnam, in which both foreign armies relied heavily on conscripted troops, faced low morale, and lost despite outnumbering and outgunning their opponents.
Furthermore if we are to take Kennedy's argument that military service benefits it's participants, then this raises another question about the value of the draft. While many countries have drafts in place, no country requires every single citizen to serve. Many countries eliminate women from mandatory service, and every country makes allowances for people with mental or physical health issues, and many other extenuating circumstances. In certain circumstances, wealthy and influential people have dug deep into the bylaws to find such an exception to allow them to escape service, something which the less fortunate are rarely able to do. In practical terms it is of course reasonable to have some exemptions from mandatory service, but if the draft is supposed to be for the benefit of the draftee, how is it fair to the segments of the population who cannot reap the benefits of being drafted due to circumstances outside of their control? Or otherwise, if we assume being drafted has a negative effect on the individual, how do we justify their larger responsibility to the state due to those same unchangeable factors? Either one segment of the population is losing the advantage of conscription, or the other segment is losing the advantage of continuing their civilian life.
Is a draft ethical when war itself exists in a moral grey area at best? Is there any way to identify situations where it is or isn't ethical?
Do you accept the argument that the draft can be good for a person or the social fabric of a society independent of just it's need for defense?
Who should have the authority to decide if a draft should be put in place? Is a majority vote sufficient? Can you imagine a situation where a war is unpopular but you would still think a draft would be justified?
How might the relationship between conscription and low morale be addressed by a government? Is there any way to prevent it or lessen it?
How do you respond to the claim that applying a draft selectively to a certain portion of the population is unjust? Is there any way to right this (real or perceived) injustice other than just drafting everyone?