Commentary
The contentious issue of conscription has bulldozed its way back into the public discourse.
Alexey Muraviev, associate professor of national security at Western Australia’s Curtin University, has thrown down the gauntlet, challenging Australia to confront the polarising concept of national service anew.
This call to arms resonates far beyond the Australian borders, igniting debates from the United States to the United Kingdom.
The crux of this heated debate lies in the willingness—or glaring lack thereof—of our youth to stand in defence of their homeland.
A striking poll from Echelon Insights in the United States lays bare a startling truth: a staggering 72 percent of American voters would balk at the prospect of military engagement, even in the face of significant conflict.
This sentiment finds an echo in Australia, where a survey commissioned by the Institute of Public Affairs (IPA) reveals that a scant 32 percent of the 18 to 24 age group would rise to defend their country, with a sizable faction preferring to flee rather than fight.
The narrative is much the same in the United Kingdom. General Sir Patrick Sanders, hinted at the potential need for conscription because of the dwindling ranks of the British Army, setting the stage for a People Polling survey commissioned by GB News.
The findings show only 14 percent of young Brits believed in bearing arms, while a significant 43 percent would seek any means to avoid military service.
This widespread aversion among the younger generation to taking up arms for their country warrants a serious interrogation.
Critics like Daniel Wild, director of research at IPA, point their ire at the cultural elites, accusing them of wielding influence over the education system and media to instil a sense of cynicism and apathy in the youth, effectively convincing them that the noble act of fighting for one’s country is an antiquated notion, best left in the annals of history.
While in America, the U.S. Army War College has issued a stark warning: America might need to adopt “partial conscription” in the face of potential conflicts with global powers like Russia or China, anticipating up to 3,600 U.S. casualties daily.
Officers Katie Crombe and John Nagl advocate for a return to draft systems to address the strategic personnel shortages, highlighted by the U.S. Army’s recruitment shortfall of 15,000 last year—a gap expected to widen.
It’s not just the U.S. Army feeling the recruitment squeeze.
The U.S. Navy, too, has found itself in the crosshairs of criticism, notably after a controversial attempt to appeal to younger recruits by selecting Yeoman 2nd Class Joshua Kelley as a digital ambassador to appear as drag queen Harpy Daniels (his alter ego) on TikTok, which backfired spectacularly.
Australia faces similar recruitment and retention challenges in light of global instability and conflict zones, as discussed by Mr. Muraviev.
Should the ADF Open Its Doors?
The Albanese government’s Defence Strategic Review calls for an expanded Australian Defence Force (ADF), a sentiment born from the recognition of the ADF’s inadequate size during the Morrison government, which had set a target for a 30 percent increase in force by 2040.Once again, the contentious proposal to recruit Pacific Islanders into the ADF is making the rounds, igniting a debate that strikes at the very heart of our national identity and the sacred principles that underpin our military ethos.
Let’s be clear: intertwining citizenship with the duty to serve in our defence forces is a cornerstone of our nation’s integrity, ensuring those who stand in defence of our shores share an intrinsic bond with the land and its people.
To dilute this bond by indiscriminately opening the ranks to those outside this compact undermines the very fabric of our society.
Historically, we’ve seen narrow exceptions to this rule, allowing for the fast-tracking of citizenship for individuals possessing specialised skills critical to our national security, or in cases where seasoned veterans from allied forces, predominantly the UK, are integrated into the ADF.
These exceptions were made with the utmost caution, ensuring that the sanctity of the nexus between citizenship and service remained intact.
To venture beyond this, to suggest that we should now broadly recruit from outside this circle without the same level of scrutiny or shared commitment to our nation’s values, is a step too far.
However, amidst this cautious approach to integrating non-citizens into the defence force, Mr. Muraviev’s recent advocacy for a broader conscription strategy presents a new dimension to the discourse, connecting past practices to the present challenges.
What Are We Defending?
The call for conscription is driven by the current geopolitical climate and the historical context of national service in Australia, abolished in 1972 under Prime Minister Gough Whitlam, yet remaining a potential response to wartime needs.Maintaining the integrity of sovereignty, independence, and freedoms may necessitate stepping out of comfort zones, a stance complicated by the diminishing prominence of national symbols and the erosion of patriotic sentiment.
Yet, in a country where the national flag increasingly plays second fiddle to a myriad of others, and with the very essence of Australia Day being eroded by cancel culture, one has to ask: for what, and for whom, are we expected to fight?
In an era where our own identity is questioned, the call to arms for a nation unsure of its own values presents a paradox that cuts to the core of our societal fabric.
Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.
