Conscript vs. professional Earlier, I posted something rather "dovish." Well-this being the blogosphere godless jumped on me. He makes some good points, I won't get into it with him on the Iraq and War on Terrorism issues because frankly I don't find them that interesting in the details. But this caught my attention:

A volunteer is a more effective soldier than a conscript....

Really? On first blush this seems obvious-a volunteer is always more motivated than a conscript. A volunteer is self-selected. But it's more complicated than that in my opinion. I'm going to take this as a general assertion, though I admit godless might have only said it in a particular context (our once and future Iraq war). First, what about the history? Are professional armies always superior? I used the example of Carthage vs. Rome earlier. During the time of the Punic Wars-Rome deployed a citizen army supplemented by levies from her allies. This system was flexible enough to withstand the onslaughts of Carthage's forces-where mercenaries were a large contingent. The Roman army was a "conscript" force until about 100 BCE-until the Consulship of Gaius Marius-who began recruiting from the proletariat of the city. These men did not have the resources to outfit themselves, and so became wards of the state and their general, in other words professional soldiers. After this point the role of the citizen-soldier declined, until you reach the late Empire after 300 CE when the armies of Rome were not even Roman, but rather foederatii-barbarian allies-and German mercenaries (the proportion of Italians decreased in the army from 90% to less than 10% in 200 years between the reign of Augustus and that of Severus in 200 CE). The early Roman model had an illustrious predecessor-the citizen armies of the Greek polis. These produced the phalanxes that defeated the Persian armies that invaded their motherland. And though the Persian armies had a professional core-they too were formed by conscripts. But here are two further twists: The Greeks were defending their homeland, and they were citizens while the Persians were subjects. I believe that citizen armies are superior to professional armies in defense of the homeland. Citizens have high stakes-their families and their property. Citizens are willing to put their lives on the line because they fight for both principle and self-interest. In addition-there is a difference between conscript levies that are pressed into service by decree from a distant monarch, subjects, and conscript levies from middle-class that have a sense of patriotism-nationalism by any other name. Iraq's army is made up of subjects. Israel's army is made up of citizens. Both are conscript armies with permanent professional cores. Of course the United States army is made up of professionals who are citizens (well-most, I belive there are green card holders and some foreign nationals in the Marines). In addition-as I said, soldiers are self-selected. The American armed forces are disproportionately black, southern and conservative. It does not represent this country (the officer corp is as Republican as NAACP membership is Democratic). From personal experience, there are two types of soldiers I've known of. The first type are those with few prospects due to a variety of reasons-some under their control (intelligence) and others not (lack of money for college because of poor parents). Others are those in college who are in ROTC or those who join the military explicitly to earn money for college. I think if there was random conscription, or even mandatory conscription, the average IQ of the soldier in the armed forces might increase. Would the morale be that much lower? Though I don't doubt the patriotism of any American soldier-many of them joined the armed forces not because they dreamed of becoming a soldier, but because they saw it as a way out of poverty or a way toward a college education. This indicates to me that the conscript's motivation to fight might not be that much lower than the current volunteer. Now, specifically in the case of the War on Terrorism-90% of Americans support it with enthusiasm. I don't think conscription would effect morale that much. The War on Terrorism is in some ways more like a war of homeland defense, as the perception is that the aggressor came to American soil and attacked American property and life. Now, in the end, do I support conscription? I'm too much of a libertarian too be able to sign on. But I simply want to bring up the point that it is not always good to have an all-volunteer professional army. In the long term, when an army begins to diverge culturally from the nation that it defends, it starts to resemble a mercenary force. The late Roman army was predominantly made up of Germans-defending an Empire of Latin and Greek speakers. The current Iranian regime is bringing in Arabs from Lebanon. The army of Fiji, which is 50% East Indian, is all native Fijian (a similar situation exists in Guyana, an all-black army serves a nation that is half Indian). The transition to a professional army seems inevitable in any society-but especially if it is not a homogenous polity, it often indicates its subsequent decline and fall. Godless responds:

It does not represent this country (the officer corp is as Republican as NAACP membership is Democratic).

First of all, I think that those who sign up to defend our country and (potentially) kill those who threaten us will be far less likely to be Democrats. As just one factor, the military is mostly male, and males are more likely to vote Republican. Secondly, while I'm certainly not an uncritical fan of the Republicans , I would much rather have someone with right-wing leanings in a military position than one with left-wing leanings. In fact, even though I voted for Gore, on 9/11 I was glad that Bush rather than Gore was president. Bush certainly did a better job than Gore would have on Afghanistan, though since then his tenure has been singularly unimpressive. Anyway, the reason you see these differences is that there is much to the characterization of the Democrats as the "mommy" party and the Republicans as the "daddy" party. The sorts of things the left stands for (mercy / compassion / sharing / empathy / sympathy for the perceived underdog) are at odds with what the right stands for (merit / independence / law & order / tough love / efficiency). There is a time and place for the left's perspective, particularly when deciding to go to war, but once embarked I think that I prefer the right's. To wit:

The transition to a professional army seems inevitable in any society-but especially if it is not a homogenous polity, it often indicates its subsequent decline and fall.

I'm not much of a fan of predictors that augur the fall of a civilization - they are often selectively chosen and their predictive value is more Nostradamic than Newtonian. When the professional military of the United States becomes a threat to neoliberal democracy and the free market, then I'll agree that we have a problem, but I don't think we're anywhere near that point (military-industrial complex notwithstanding).

I think if there was random conscription, or even mandatory conscription, the average IQ of the soldier in the armed forces might increase. Would the morale be that much lower?

Morale isn't the only issue - efficiency is. If you could convince me that a conscript army would be a more effective fighting force than a professional military, then conscription might be something to consider. But at the present time, I'm not aware of studies that compare the effectiveness of voluntary armies with that of conscript armies, and in any case I doubt that the difference would be high enough to offset the cost in morale. Would we be better served by having soldiers with higher IQ? Perhaps, but there is an opportunity cost involved in putting such people on the front lines. I'd much rather have them developing weaponry safely at home. The fact that the average IQ of a soldier is low is something of a red herring, because advanced military research is done by high IQ civilians, not by soldiers. The point being: the force does not suffer a lack of materiel for want of high IQ volunteers. (link included so you know it was not a typo.) Basically, I think that the whole "reinstitute the draft" thing smacks of egalitarianism for its own sake. It seems to me that efficiency is a far more important criterion. If our ability to prosecute war effectively was boosted by conscription (perhaps in a time of massive casualties) then it would behoove us to entertain the notion of a draft. Again, my point is that efficiency, rather than ideology (whether pro-draft egalitarian or anti-draft libertarian) should determine whether or not we have a draft. And I'm not convinced that a force of conscripts would be better at killing than a force of trained professionals.