The Harmful Impact of Conscription and ANZAC Legend

Conscription also called the draft, is a military action of recruiting and putting up the hand of young, fit men and woman. Conscription hasn’t been in action in Australia for over 45 years. It was abolished in December of 1972 and remaining men in prisons for refusing conscription were let free. Men and woman all over the world cringe at the thought of conscription yet some having differing opinions about the matter which will be explored openly and without bias. Conscription divides people but overall consensus is that it denies humans the freedom that they are entitled too, in contrast it also doesn’t take a fair stance reining fortunate people with a lower chance of conscription and less fortunate with a higher chance. Finally, the need for conscription could be argued with the point that it maintains a high level of military activity and national comradery. Conscription is a hard fight with no real victors, but the negatives outweighs the positives in most cases.

Conscription is a tool which is used by countries around the world to deny their citizens their basic rights. Conscription has long been abolished in 1st world places such as Australia for over 45 years. The people in power leading these conscriptions are the same ones that were running from in years earlier are now the ones orchestrating it. Conscription and atrocity go hand in hand, complements of each other, supplements perhaps which is seen throughout history from the Anzac legends to your everyday teenager who was convinced that fighting in Vietnam created men who reaped the glory which supposedly followed. As shown by Leunig who wasn’t taken by the proposal and resented it while proclaiming that ‘The Anzac legend is more of a shaming device then an inspirational one.’ Conscription doesn’t allow people of society to live their lives freely which is what in the end people are fighting for, people would in turn be losing their freedom just to then gain freedom for more fortunate people, that doesn’t seem right. The Greatest ever (Muhammad Ali) put it best ‘why fight with someone you aren’t got no quarrel with?’ People should have their freedom to serve their country if they so choose but they shouldn’t have that choice made for them. After all a democratic society is supposed to be one where people and society are free from government intervention.

Furthermore, the draft is open for manipulation leaving the poor and less fortunate more vulnerable to impending deaths in foreign countries. The conscription period for the Vietnam war around Leunig’s time became an issue as conscription was mandatory lottery for all 20-year-old males with people being drawn based on birth date. The drafting period was flawed with loop holes that allowed for the rich to duck and weave being conscripted by taking overseas jaunts and deferments, which were only available to the men of wealthy or influential backgrounds with the cash to slash, ‘You couldn’t blame them, expect that some of these cunning gentlemen later became politicians… in favour of violent military solutions to humanitarian problems. ‘This therefore left unfortunate and unwilling men who didn’t have the money to be forced into fighting which just wasn’t fair. It wasn’t just the wealthy trying to get out of it, it was frontline fighters as well wanting conscription to be stopped as they weren’t a fan of fighting alongside men who weren’t properly trained and who didn’t really care for it or want to be their entirely. The system which enabled conscription was flawed yet still legal, everyone one who got accepted for deferment just meant a less educated and or poorer had to take their place.

Finally, on the other hand conscription creates high levels of military activity and sustainable military presence. The need for troops and soldiers in times of war is always high and conscription would guarantee 7000 men each and every month to fight. This would allow for the quota of men to be meeting to continue to help in the war effort. Whereas this is true once again it isn’t right, why is justifying sending unwilling men to war be justified off the basis of wanting to continue in the war effort? It is shown by men on the frontline wanting to fight that have been trained that sending new untrained and unprepared men to war doesn’t lift the spirits of anyone if anything it drops it, they don’t want to fight with unwilling men and the men just don’t want to be there at all. Australia also believed it owed something to Great Britain during war periods in being an ally but once again why justify sending men to their deaths against their will fine because Great Britain expected and believed we owed it to them? It is ridiculous.

Obviously military conscription is not a necessary part of war people shouldn’t have that choice taken away from them under any circumstance. Firstly, it takes away basic human rights and doesn’t give citizens the choice to decide to fight or not. In addition, the draft is open for manipulation and does not give everyone the chance as people can avoid it and have preventative measures to get out of it. Now things have changed, for the better. Conscription is no longer an option and never should be again. Keep it this way.