More than fair and forces a more real and deep skin in the game for those more hawkish around defend their own land.
::marginally-related:: For the US folks, how you feel with this kind of discrepancy around people hawkish around military involvement but not directly having that kind of skin in the game?
In some point in past I was living in Wyoming and saw all the poles around the main avenue with a lot of young military folks in KIA/MIA pictures as some way of remembrance and at the same time guys in talking heads show asking for more military personnel in the same conflict.
(PS: No horse in the race in this current conflict).
The whole ultra-orthodox situation is weird to me - not only did they get out of compulsory military service, they also receive massive welfare benefits that apparently aren't generally available (few of them work - they spend all their time studying). But, I don't know anything beyond what I'm reading in US-based newspapers, so maybe there's more to it.
As for the situation in the US - I definitely hate that hawkish politicians rarely have any skin in the game. I might have a warped view living in DC, but the senior officer corp is often made up of generational military. And the enlisted soldiers are very often from disadvantaged areas. Having a volunteer military is a good thing, but it feels like (no data to back this up) we're well along the path of creating a military "caste" or two. If anybody has data about the family histories of current enlisted soldiers and officers, I'd be interested to see if my thought bares out.
"The authors conclude the implications are mixed. On the positive side of the ledger, they report that the United States now possesses a more ready and professionalized military than ever before. On the negative side, this force consists of a dwindling percentage of the population, who are more isolated from mainstream American society than ever before. As a growing percentage of service members and officers are coming from military families themselves, the choice to join the military is becoming more akin to a decision to join the family business. The result is greater divisions between the “Warrior Caste” and the civilian population than the numbers would indicate if taken at face value. "
It's worth noting that back in the medieval ages, most of the nobles (sometimes even the king) would be on the frontlines with the peasants, men-at-arms, and everyone in between. The ruling class could win and more importantly lose everything including their lives in an instant every time they went to war.
Contrast now where the politicians declaring wars and the generals commanding them seldom leave their gilded halls and fortified bunkers deep in the homeland.
Wars are easier to wage when you don't have to stick your own neck out. The advent of unmanned warfare will probably make this worse before it can get better.
You can just go back to the WWII era, and leading American families were pulling strings to make sure their younger sons were serving in the military - with a strong preference for front-line combat positions. Look at Joseph / John / Robert / Edward Kennedy. George Bush Sr. was one of the youngest combat pilots in the U.S. Navy. All four of President Roosevelt's sons served in WWII; as did his only son-in-law. Etc., etc.
without getting a once in a lifetime war - like WW2. Where glory awaits, most wars are a profit mechanism.
hence cannon fodder, will be coming from the unwashed masses. while the Officers and senior brass, come from the 'elite' classes. Getting into WestPoint ain't easy - where most of the generals come from.
so the whole skin in the game - in terms of war - only happens a few times.
now with drone warfare, you don't have to exposed to the carnage you cause.
I heard a great take, that due to low demographics across all developed countries - wars are costly. But also costly in terms of killing people who are about to start family and have kids.
If your country has already sub-replacement birthrates. It makes no sense to send young people to die. its better to send people who already had kids (30-40+). That's why Ukraine doesn't really want to lover the age of conscription.
Russia having never-ending young poor people to die in trenches is a lie, they actually have a demograpic gap in young males.
This is good news. But I think both Israel and the US should pass a law that the child of any senior member of government, who is also old enough to serve (18-35) and has no dependents should be automatically deployed to combat. No exceptions except for medical conditions that significantly impact ability to fight. Let’s see how many pointless wars get started then.
I would also say that anyone who votes for military action, should be in combat at least half of the elected term. Run the vote and then from those who voted for immediately ship of half selected randomly.
Lack of a medical condition isn't a workable solution - there are too many "minor" conditions that are disqualifying. Excema, celiac, bone spurs (real or imagined), etc. It won't be hard for wealthy, politically connected families to get waivers.
This would, in the long run, fill the government with true hawks that hold genuine warlike values and don't mind their kids dying for the greater glory of the nation, or childless people.
Isn't that a bit of a perverse incentive, or at least result you don't want to see?
I did think of that. Maybe we need to add a financial requirement, where politicians must pay twice higher personal taxes during war time to help cover costs?
It might be good news in that it's fairer. But in the current situation, it might have been better news for the opposition to have made the usual concession to the ultra-orthodox and allied with them to kick the ultranationalists out of the government.
Why should having dependents be get away free? Shouldn't it double the service time per dependent. After all there is more skin in the game. Single people should be last to be forced to fight wars...
I think he inelegantly arguing the opposite - why should having a family get somebody out of otherwise compulsory service? That ends up just being an incentive for the kids of politicians to breed early and often.
That isn't true for the case of Israel. Almost half of the current government didn't serve in the required army duty. Some were rejected by the army for their extremist views which in the past would have also banned them from elected office.
I wonder if people will actually bother learning about the subject and history of a place before forming an opinion and posting online...
Hasidim don't care about anything related to this. They don't want to be in the army because they want to study Torah and because they could get away with it.
Israelis have a draft law. Many have died in Gaza, Lebanon etc. Everyone in Israel is related or knows someone related to someone who died recently in this conflict.
Finally, that stupidity of "skin in the game" is astounding to me. The more people die the longer the war takes because "they couldn't have died for nothing". It becomes more brutal too because we can't risk our children fighting over there.
THOSE Ultra Orthodox are not the ones you are thinking about, they are real ultra religious people that actually goes to Yeshiva's and study the bible or whatever they study there.
They’re settling on disputed lands and slowly pushing out Palestinians. Who is defending them at all times? Israeli soldiers who are not Ultra Ortodox. I think it’s good to give them a taste of conscription, all other Israelis do it, male, female, no exceptions. They are the exception.
Not those Ultra Orthodoxes. They are mostly located in undisputed places like Bnei Brak, Jerusalem, Harish or Bet Shemesh.
Religious settlers tend to serve in the army, although sometimes for a shorter period (in a Yeshivat Hesder).
Having said that, the ruling is just and make sense.
That is incorrect there are quite large Jewish orthodox cities inside Palestinian territories Like Elad and Beitar Elit. They are quite big. However they are relatively close to the Israeli border and not 'in your face' settlements.
Sounds like Russia (and Apartheid South Africa before this, where I'm from) forcing their citizens to fight this genocide. What kind of a democracy is Apartheid Israel, where you can't remove yourself from doing something you feel unjust?
EDIT. Wow, seconds later and I'm downvoted. Sounds like the Hasbara bots are here too.
>>where you can't remove yourself from doing something you feel unjust?
They aren't skipping conscription because they think it's unjust, they are skipping it because they say they want to study religious scripts instead. And in fact if you wanted to use that excuse to skip military service you wouldn't be able to without being part of a certain group beforehand. Now the court is removing that exception.
I suspect you're being downvoted because you are demonstrating a lack of understanding of the political situation in Israel. The governing party in Israel has been propped up by ultra-orthodox parties that have no skin in the game because they and their families are exempt from the draft. Far from being conscientious objectors, the ultra-orthodox have enabled and supported the current situation without suffering the consequences of it.
::marginally-related:: For the US folks, how you feel with this kind of discrepancy around people hawkish around military involvement but not directly having that kind of skin in the game?
In some point in past I was living in Wyoming and saw all the poles around the main avenue with a lot of young military folks in KIA/MIA pictures as some way of remembrance and at the same time guys in talking heads show asking for more military personnel in the same conflict.
(PS: No horse in the race in this current conflict).