The quality of military service is heavily compromised

The argument

In creating a modern military draft, a country's fighting force could potentially become saturated with those who offer both a lack of experience as well as conviction, resulting in an increase in the number of disciplinary actions as well as a decrease in the quality of service. This is juxtaposed to those who typically volunteer to join the military. Such individuals are found to have higher test scores on military entrance exams, and more experience regarding positive military outcomes. As a result, these individuals are generally more productive than other service members.

Premises

Counter-arguments

The quality of military service would be far from compromised, especially as all incoming men and women would be subjected to the same training as those who volunteer; this sentiment is all the more true when considering that both volunteers and those serving under a mandatory draft enter with the same baseline knowledge. Moreover, the military would be strengthened through the sheer amount of men and women available to participate in war and defense strategies. This, in turn, would also ensure that all of a country and its citizens would be protected from direct threats. Additionally, a mandatory draft would even promote peace and stability. First, more individuals allow a stronger national defense. Second, issues regarding war and peace move from the periphery of national discourse to the center as more people are involved. And the only way to do such a thing is through the draft.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] Lack of experience applies to every new entrant, volunteer or conscript — which is what basic training exists for. Conviction is asserted rather than measured, and conscript forces have performed effectively in a number of armies; several states, including Israel, Finland, Singapore and South Korea, maintain conscription alongside high assessments of military capability. [Rejecting P2] The comparison suffers from selection on both sides. Volunteer recruits are screened, so entrance-exam scores reflect who is admitted rather than what service produces, and the same screening can be applied to a draft through assignment by aptitude, which is how most conscript systems allocate roles. A wider intake also reaches people who would never have volunteered, which bears on the range of ability available and not only on its average. [Rejecting P3] The conclusion asks more than the premises deliver. Even granting some reduction in average quality, the case for or against conscription turns on what a state needs its forces for, on cost, on how the burden is distributed and on individual liberty — the last being the objection with real force and the one this argument never makes. Arguing on quality alone also concedes that conscription would be acceptable if quality could be maintained.