Look, just stop wasting your money. Go with a Professional Volunteer Army. You may even find they can actually do the job, and not be as fast as the current slow motion deployment to Lebanon.

With a country of 5 million people, how well do you reckon the professional volunteer army would work? With 3 940 km of border around it, with a very small military budget?

I believe it, when experts of this field claim our current model most cost effective; Where do you want to cut for the money for a believable professional army?

I appreciate a working health care for all (not a perfect one, but one that doesn’t exclude the poor nonetheless), good libraries, free education.. gosh, even the clean enviroment. And all these things require money.

Military/civil service is a cheap, logical and ethical way to arrange certain things compulsory to any nation.

If you happen to know what is the Finnish-Russian border alike and what a disaster it would be if the emigration effect as now seen in the Southern Europe, would happen on that border, you would be pro compulsory military service. That’s the only threat why this system is up and running. Besides, this country couldn’t care less for NATO.
Voluntary service wouldn’t be efficient enough.

I don’t think it’s that difficult to avoid compulsory service these days. I don’t even think you need an excuse other than: “It’s against my principles to shoot Russians”

But then one might argue that civilian service is slavery…

..which would be bull. It is such in no way. A person is always free to move to another country; note Free, as opposed to enslaved.

With citizenship comes not only rights but duties. And the defence of the country that one is a citizen off seems a reasonable duty for a country to ask of its citizens.

Finland has only just over 5 million people and exists next to a large country that is potentially unstable. A volunteer army would lead to an insufficient manstrength with military training should the unfortunate ever happen and Finland need mobilise.

“The length of non-military service has been criticized as being punitive by Amnesty International [citation needed] because it is over twice as long as the most common alternative, six-month military service. Several motions to shorten it have been made in the Finnish Parliament but none have passed. Proponents point out that those serving as conscripts serve in theory 24 hours per day (especially when in the field), as opposed to those who have opted for non-military service, who (depending on the post) typically serve during office hours.”

The whole counting of total time to serve seems to also exclude the future calls for refresher training. If they want to do only six months then they should find a suitable position in the military. Nobody should be excluded, because once you let one off the hook the rest rightly claim foul. So how about service or jail?

Any yes, Finland has a problem being that there’s only 5 mil. In their case, conscription makes sense.

ethical way

Ethical?!? What’s ethical about forcing people into work against their will by threat of force and jail!?!?

Where do you want to cut for the money for a believable professional army?

Cut spending, raise taxes, whatever. I agree, we need a defence, but we cannot force people into slavery to support it.

Voluntary service wouldn’t be efficient enough.

“If you pay them, they will come.”

Finland has only just over 5 million people and exists next to a large country that is potentially unstable.

Is it 2006 or 1976? It must be 1976 because that’s how people act. This Russiaphobia looks so silly to an outsider. Besides, the pathetic slave army that Finland has now couldn’t hold off Russia. If Finns were serious about protection, they’d join NATO. But FInns are more interested in hating Russia then protecting themselves.

Slavery, AKA conscription, is certainly not efficient.

http://www.helsinki.fi/~ssyreeni/l-diaries/libertarian-faq-q-95

Asevelvollisuutta perustellaan monilla syillä. Tärkeimmät liittyvät maanpuolustuksen käytännön toteutukseen ja kuluihin, sekä moraalisiin velvollisuuksiin isänmaata kohtaan. Asevelvollisuudella katsotaan usein olevan myös kasvatuksellisia tehtäviä, etenkin poikien suhteen. Silloin tällöin kuulee taloustieteellisiäkin argumentteja asevelvollisuuden puolesta; ne nojaavat tyypillisesti maanpuolustuksen ulkoishyötyihin tai harvoin toteutuvien riskien aliarviointiin.

Maanpuolustus on todella osittainen julkishyödyke. Jos ympäröivät ihmiset puolustavat aluettaan hyökkäykseltä, sinun ei välttämättä tarvitse. Niinpä et investoi maanpuolustukseen, kaikki ajattelevat samoin, eikä maanpuolustusta välttämättä saada rahoitettua. Päättely on kuitenkin puutteellinen. Todellisuudessa nykysodankäynti ulottuu heti myös sisämaahan, esimerkiksi pommitusten muodossa. Samoin, maanpuolustuksen julkishyödykeluonteesta ei seuraa, että asevelvollisuus olisi paras tapa ratkaista ongelma. Päin vastoin, väitteestä seuraa korkeintaan verovaroin rahoitettu palkka‐armeija tai palkattu reservi. Libertaarit tyypillisesti kannattavat näiden yhdistelmää.

Väite palkka‐armeijan kalleudesta on vielä harhaanjohtavampi, koska se ei ota huomioon asevelvollisuuden todellisia kuluja. Vaikka asevelvolliselle ei makseta rahaa, hänen tuotantopanoksensa on kuitenkin palveluksen ajan pois yhteiskunnalta. Hän kuluttaa, vaikka ei tee tuottavaa työtä eikä maksa veroja. Se hyödyllinenkin harjoitus jonka hän sotaväessä läpikäy on luultavasti huonompaa ajankäyttöä kuin vapaa elämä, koska hintajärjestelmä ei tässä ohjaa parhaita sotilaita armeijaan ja muita muihin töihin. Palkka‐armeijaan taas päätyvät ne jotka ovat parhaita maanpuolustajia, samalla kun muut voivat tehdä tuottavaa työtä ja maksaa osuutensa maanpuolustuksesta välillisesti. Palkka‐armeija johtaa samanlaiseen tuottavaan työnjakoon kuin muillakin taloudenaloilla. Asevelvollisuus taas vain siirtää kustannukset rahallisen kirjanpidon ulkopuolelle, ja tehottomuushaitta tekee siitä itse asiassa reaalisin termein kalliimman järjestelmän kuin palkka‐armeijasta.

Samoin kannattaa muistaa, että libertaarit kannattavat yleensä varsinaisen täysipäiväisen palkka‐armeijan ja pienemmällä palkalla ylläpidetyn reservin yhdistelmää. Tämä laskee rahallisiakin kuluja huomattavasti, vaikka järjestelmä on sisäpoliittisesti paljon vakaampi kuin seisova armeija ja tuotettu puolustuskyky likimain yhtäläinen. Kyse on jälleen järkevästä työnjaosta—esimerkiksi jalkaväkeä tarvitaan vain sotaoloissa, joten se on parempi pitää reservissä. Näin saadaan myös paljon mittavampi jalkaväki samaan hintaan.

Entä riskien aliarviointi? Ehkäpä yksilöt eivät ota sodanuhkaa riittävän vakavasti ja ali‐investoivat maanpuolustukseen? Tämäkin argumentti on pitämätön, koska myös nykyinen armeija kärsii samasta ongelmasta. Jos ihmiset johdonmukaisesti jättävät riskit huomiotta, he jättäisivät ne huomiotta myös nykyään, eikä asevelvollisuusarmeijan kalustoon, koulutukseen tai miesvahvuuteen investoida tarpeeksi. Lisäksi yksityinen talous tarjoaa lukemattomia instituutioita jotka ovat erikoistuneet tällaisten ongelmien ratkaisemiseen. Sijoitus‐ ja vakuutusyhtiöt sekä yksityiset säätiöt ovat vain muutamia esimerkkejä pitkäaikaisten riskien hallintaan ja arviointiin erikoistuneista yksityisistä organisaatioista.

Viimeisin argumentti on itse asiassa niin vahva, että useimmat anarkokapitalistit luottaisivat hyvillä mielin koko maanpuolustuksen mieluummin yksityisten instituutioiden käsiin, jo tänään.

Taloudellisten argumenttien lisäksi libertaarit joutuvat vastaamaan vielä moraalisiin. Tärkein niistä lienee kunkin omakohtainen moraalinen vastuu yhteiskuntarauhan ylläpidosta, ja isänmaan turvallisuudesta.

Ensimmäiseen osaan libertaarit yleensä yhtyvät täysimittaisesti—kullakin on todella velvollisuus ylläpitää rauhaa—mutta tästä ei seuraa sen enempää velvollisuutta mennä armeijaan kuin puolustaa muita. Varsinkaan tuntemattomia. Kukin voi yhtä hyvin tehdä osansa maksamalla veroja tai turvallisuuspalvelun hinnaston mukaista puolustusmaksua. Ja kun libertarismi nyt on osa liberalismia, joka lähtee yksilöiden oikeuksista ja ylipäänsä sallii valtiot ja isänmaat korkeintaan ikävänä välttämättömyytenä sen jälkeen kun ne on ensin alistettu yksilöille, isänmaallisuus ei oikein vakuuta. Libertaarit arvioivat isänmaallisuutta sen mukaan kuinka se suhtautuu yksilönvapauteen, eivät yksilönvapautta sen mukaan mitä nationalismi siitä sanoo.

Viimein, sotaväki katsotaan usein myös kasvatukselliseksi instituutioksi, etenkin nuorille miehille. Monet väittävät, että aseellinen palvelus tekee pojista miehiä. Tämä kuitenkin pätee vain, jos miehet ovat valtion kyseenalaistamattomia palvelijoita, tarvitsevat tappajan koulutuksen ja jos yhteiskunta jotenkin hyötyy asevelvollisuusarmeijan ylläpitämästä sovinistisesta arvojärjestelmästä. Libertaarit eivät hyväksy tällaisia ajatuksia, vaan uskovat, että aikuisiksi, vastuullisiksi yksilöiksi kasvetaan vapauden ja laillisen tasa‐arvon vallitessa. Niinpä pidämme asevelvollisuusarmeijaa itse asiassa haitallisena nuorten kehitykselle—se tekee asevelvollisista heikkoluonteisia, kykenemättömiä omakohtaiseen harkintaan, haluttomia kunnioittamaan sukupuolten tiukkaa tasa‐arvoa sekä kyvyttömiä arvostamaan täysin sitä vastuuta joka aseelliseen vastarintaan liittyy.

Phil wrote:
“Go Greens!!”

Didn’t you read what that commie bitch said?

“Cronberg said that the Green League does not wish to forgo conscription, but said Finland could follow the Swedish and German models of recruitment for military service.”

The Greens are in favour of conscription.

Is it 2006 or 1976? It must be 1976 because that’s how people act. This Russiaphobia looks so silly to an outsider. Besides, the pathetic slave army that Finland has now couldn’t hold off Russia. If Finns were serious about protection, they’d join NATO. But FInns are more interested in hating Russia then protecting themselves.

Of course, Russia is less of a threat at this immediate point in time than t.ex 1976, but none-the-less, it is far from a stable land yet. This is nothing to do with Russiaphobia, I have no problem with Russians any more than I have with the Germans (don’t forget that although we were co-belligerants in the wars, we had to fight the Germans to expel them from Lappland and they torched many settlements on their retreat). It’s just a simple geopolitical reality, a big potentially unstable neighbour is next door (it just happens that it is Russia).

Now, of course, our military is much less powerful and large than the Russian. But, it would be even less powerful still if we had to rely on voluntary forces.

As for NATO, this is an American-led club. I actually think it would increase the risk to Finland to associate itself with it.

Although, in fairness to the Green proposal (and I have had no more time other than to read the brief English Yle news article you link to), perhaps now as there is less risk than 1976 we could perhaps adopt an approach more like the Swedish, where not 100% of each age group is called up. This would perhaps allow better management of the resources or the saving of some money to be used for other matters.

Besides, the pathetic slave army that Finland has now couldn’t hold off Russia.

An all-volunteer force, on the other hand, could take Karelia back in no time flat. Its shiny, compact, libertarian-approved awesomeness would soon have Russia’s shabby slave army – they have conscription too, you know – running for the Siberian hills.

Yeah those were pathetic conscript/slave armies of United States and Soviet Union that crushed Nazi-Germany.

And obviously we can blame this whole conscript-thingy wholly on welfare-state. It’s not like conscript armies haven’t excisted in capitalistic, communist, feudal, tribal and every other political and/or economical type society.

“we could perhaps adopt an approach more like the Swedish, where not 100% of each age group is called up. This would perhaps allow better management of the resources or the saving of some money to be used for other matters.”

Now just how do you choose? Do you pick the best and brightest, or from the bottom of the barrel? Or is this something random. That sounds least fair of all.

I don’t really have problem with conscription idea and having civil service as other option. These would be all fine and good, except if it weren’t for the fact that this concerns men only. Women should have the same responsibility as well.

Gender equality, my ass…

I’m all for conscription. I just wish they’d do it in the US, too. I have this fantasy of seeing one of the Bush daughters crying because she broke a nail while in a foxhole in Iraq.

But the way I see it, Finland either professionalizes it’s military and joins NATO or tries to get by with conscription.

Wars are no longer fought by large armies. They are fought by strategic special forces. Heck the USA took over Afghanistan with just one special forces unit directing air strikes.

Quit wasting your money on conscripts. They are worthless in a real war, and your wave the white flag at every attack, means you just don’t need them.

19.
You said it, wars are no longer fought by large armies.
Either is Finland facing a war with Russia, but are you all that blind to see that Russia is unstable country? The threat is not war but unstable society.
It’s not hatred, it’s the fact. Just see how Putin is trying to keep the country in one piece. Impossible task, it will have another revolution sooner or later. And we happen to have over 1000 kilometers of border with them. Bombs in the market places, Beslan, Chechenyia, killing Japanese fishermen, all the 200 or so smaller nations under Russian order, all waiting for their chance to become independent. Russia is a FEDERATION just like Yugoslavia or the USA. But the difference with the USA is that there is no melting pot theory that works in Russia.

Indeed as part of equality the ladies should be conscripted in or undertake a similar role if their physical strength cannot match it.

And certainly, in any case, finland should focus on itself and not piss about in Lebanon or other oeace keeping roles using conscripts or volunteers.

19: Heck the USA took over Afghanistan with just one special forces unit directing air strikes.
From news on July 09, 2004: U.S. troop presence in Afghanistan at 17,900, and expected to hold steady.
Quite a big special force unit.

BTW israel seems to do just fine with conscript (both men and women) army.

People said after WWI that there would be no more wars since they have become too horrible. Lets all think like that.

But the difference with the USA is that there is no melting pot theory that works in Russia.

I think the Russian theory is “whack them with the pot”.

They need to establish NAACP in Russia –
National Association for the Advancement of Caucasian People
http://www.hs.fi/english/article/Hatred+and+violence+flares+up+between+Slavs+and+Caucasians+in+Russian+Karelia/1135221403960

BTW israel seems to do just fine with conscript (both men and women) army.

Yeah, I’d like to see all our American friends here advocate the disbanding of conscription in Israel first. Then we might buy the argument – you antifinites!!!

I already told that in comments to another Phil’s post:

no matter what army Finland has – conscription based or professional, Russia is going to invade the country very soon. Phil was already doing his biking scouting from Tapiola to the west – all nice houses will be exproriated.

If you go to Moscow or St.P. these days – everywhere (streets, bars, clubs) you can hear people talking about invading Finland and how great it’s going to be! Who in their right mind would need a villa on Cap d’Antib, if you can have a mökki without proper toilet?

Didn’t you read what that commie bitch said?

I think it’s at least a step in the right direction. I’d except small changes like this before tehy completely end conscription. I doubt there’s too many Greens out there who truly support conscription.

First of all,
Israel’s conscript army enjoys wide support throughout Israeli society. Its the backbone of the IDF, and crucial for turning back and Arab offencive.

While Finland’s FDF conscript system might seem outdated due to the lack of an aggressive undemocratic Russia, I assume that the reserve units would provide much of the same needed support of its main army during a time of war.

That it couldn’t withstand a prolonged Russian offencive is not in question, but that’s where allies step in, and being a part of the EU would afford some of the needed urgency to defend Europe’s collective border. I do believe that Finland should join NATO, but keep its conscripts as well.

You can’t possibly have the same number of men being trained as soldiers presently, under a volunteer system. It’s just not possible, and with such a small country, time is of the essence, that the reason for training every Finnish male in the art of war. Finland and Israel just do not have the geography a volunteer army would demand.

I’m all for conscription. I just wish they’d do it in the US, too. I have this fantasy of seeing one of the Bush daughters crying because she broke a nail while in a foxhole in Iraq.

There was a conscription army during the Vietnam war. And so George Bush indeed ended up in the jungle fighting the commies. Of course he did, how else could it be? Unlike that coward Kerry.

President Koivisto (who actually fought the commies in Finnish forests) once said, by the way: “Wouldn’t it be frightening if just those carried guns who want to?” The conscription army in Finland is an important civil right making sure that a large majority of Finnish men know how to defend the country if any need arises – and making sure among other things that those who don’t want to learn how to defend the country with arms have the right to skip it.

1: “Go with a Professional Volunteer Army. You may even find they can actually do the job, and not be as fast as the current slow motion deployment to Lebanon.”

Actually the peace keepers are all volunteers.

“BTW israel seems to do just fine with conscript (both men and women) army.”… well not so fast on how well conscripts work in war.

from Israel

———————————————————–

incredible 27-minute piece by an Israeli video journalist depicting Israel’s war against Hezbollah: “To hell and back.” Jim wrote:

Israeli video journalist Itai Anghel went into Hezbollah-controlled Lebanon with the Nahal Brigade and shot 25 minutes of riveting house-to-house combat footage with a night vision lens. The Hezbollah fighters wore Israeli uniforms.

Huh, you need to watch this video: paste this URL into your browser: http://switch248-01.castup.net/cunet/gm.asp?ClipMediaID=209947&ak=63628786

criticisms of the IDF as shown by this video, which I believe to be representative. This will sound harsh, but is given with the hope of being seen as constructive.

1) A Regiment was repulsed and therefore failed to complete its mission (the occupation of the village) by three terrorists.

2) Although unquestionably brave, the leaders, at all levels, in leading from the front, became consumed by one firefight, rather than focused on completing their mission.

3) After only four casualties, none of which were fatal, the commander withdrew, due solely to his participation in that firefight. (What about the flanking enemy that he was concerned about?)

4) There was a complete lack of coordination with other units, fire support, etc. after the initial pro-forma, 1800′s style artillery barrage.

—————————————–

Bottom line: The guys were not a credable army.

The Israelis had plans for attack, but not given ample time to coordinate them, then told to “stand pat” while the polticians dithered, making IDF soldiers targets.

The men were well trained, but its not their fault if they were ill equiped, and “ham strung” by the present gov’t. They guys proved their mettle in the heat of combat, due to their training, and that is in my opinion a credible fighting force.

>I don’t think it’s that difficult to avoid compulsory service these >days. I don’t even think you need an excuse other than: “It’s against >my principles to shoot Russians”
>
>But then one might argue that civilian service is slavery…

Infact, I avoided both the military and civil service with (more or less) that “excuse”.

Actually, most countries have conscription, now professional army.

Fred Fry“Now just how do you choose? Do you pick the best and brightest, or from the bottom of the barrel? Or is this something random. That sounds least fair of all.”

Well, actually Fred I am more on agreement with you (first time for everything ) than not on this. See above.

I cannot speak of being an expert on what Sweden does, but I think they try to avoid conscripting people who aren’t as fit or bright or show less willing in the percentage that they “eliminate”. I am not sure how much of it is done on a random basis. I will ask a Swede tomorrow.

Phil,

as for the ethics of governments having their citizen to do military/civil cervice, I understand that it might be viewed from a negative perspective by a northern american person. Land of freedom, and all that.

But Finland is a very leftist country, in the end. Very socialist-democratic. And that involves certain commitment to the community, with the suffering of some invidual freedom. In my opinion, 6-13 months is not that bad. Again I repeat: It’s not slavery, if there’s an opportunity to choose. Each community makes rules for it’s members, countries aren’t different. I agree about making it compulsory to women as well, though perhaps just on a level of principle.

As for the libertarian arguments: I wasn’t convinced. Except for the “boys to men” -part, to which I wholeheartedly agree. Economical points are interesting, but contradicting with the main opinion – and in this case, I believe the majority of experts. Especially with the lack of sources or figures.

I see no ethical problems with compulsory service from a citizen to country. It’s for the common good, valuable work. Even France is thinking about setting up a compulsory six months civil service for everyone. Besides, Finland is continuously cutting it’s army’s budget, which is a healthy direction.

“They guys proved their mettle in the heat of combat, due to their training, and that is in my opinion a credible fighting force.”

yea, but they failed to take their objective…

Also their tactics are right out of the 60′s. They need support helos, with night vision, all integrated to punch through. All they had was the odd 60 style artilery, which had no real effect on 3 defenders.

Imagine that, the IDF stopped by 3 men.

#29 Like I said, it was a fantasy.

Plaa plaa plaa. Case closed.

Now if you realy want to defend your country:

link:Stormtroopers blast through gender barrier

or Google “Femtroopers.”

Comment by Anssi Kokkonen:
“But Finland is a very leftist country, in the end. Very socialist-democratic. And that involves certain commitment to the community, with the suffering of some invidual freedom.”

You’re just describing what Finland is currently like.

You’re not saying why it should remain that way.

No OUGHT from IS!!

“In my opinion, 6-13 months is not that bad.”

That’s your opinion, and your opinion is totally irrelevant to me.

Even one hour of forced labour is still slavery. It doesn’t stop being slavery just because you don’t think it’s bad.

There were a lot of negro slaves who thought slavery wasn’t bad. That doesn’t mean it wasn’t slavery.

“Again I repeat: It’s not slavery if there’s an opportunity to choose.” “A person is always free to move to another country; note Free, as opposed to enslaved.”

In your sick mind, Jews were not oppressed in Germany because they were free to move to other countries, e.g. Finland, Sweden, Switzerland etc.

“As for the libertarian arguments: I wasn’t convinced.”

That’s because 1.) you don’t give a shit about freedom, 2.) you don’t understand anything about economics.

“Economic points are interesting, but contradicting with the main opinion – and in this case, I believe the majority of experts.”

100% of all economists agree with the economic arguments used in that libertarian FAQ. The fact that most Finnish politicians don’t agree with those arguments simply proves that Finnish politicians don’t understand anything about economics.

“Especially with the lack of sources or figures.”

The self-evident economic arguments used in that libertarian FAQ do not need to be backed up by sources or numbers because the arguments are logically necessarily true.

I’ve been a longtime reader of this site, and have enjoyed a lot of your columns; it’s particularly refreshing to see Finland through the eyes of a thoughtful, intelligent young American, though many of your ‘libertarian’ positions are rather sophomoric, poorly thought out, and in fact do not reflect the American Libertarian philosophy at all. Nowhere is this more evident than in your depiction of Finnish conscription as ‘slavery’. Conscription may or may not produce an army capable of defending itself against a Soviet-style superpower, but that’s beside the point. Future wars throughout the world–and Europe will see its share–will be based on the ‘Lebanon model’ of armed militias contesting ‘millet’-style ethnic and sectarian ghettoes with mobile and mass-produced light weapons such as antitank missiles. Finland is unique in modern Europe in its preparation for such conflict–and in its ability to protect its citizenry when others cannot–or will not. It is an ironic feature of history that the most-motivated nationalisms in the eternal cycle of ethnic survival are often the youngest, particularly if they have suffered a long period of cultural suppression, as have the Finns.

Moreover, your position is inconsistent with that of American Libertarian tradition, which, based on a conservative interpretation of the Constitution, believes that a properly trained citizen-soldier is the nation’s best hope for future survival. A year of national service is the direct equivalent of the local militias (also conscripted), which served at the time of our nation’s birth. In short, this American tradition is healthier here in Finland than it is in your native Baltimore. I should know. I’ve seen football games both in Helsinki and at Memorial Stadium.

Libertarians are by definition opposed to conscription. Period.

If you do not understand this, you don’t know what libertarianism is all about.

The national service system works in Finland, it has a proven track record of working, check your history books for the Winter & Continuation Wars for further details.

Finland, in common with most Nordic countries, maintains a small professional army, and a larger, all volunteer ‘part time’ home guard type formation. This suits her needs, and negates the need for a large standing army, yet if needed, several hundred thousand troops could be mobilised should the unthinkable happen.

Pathetic slave army?

I’m lost for words, I suggest you read up a little more about the exploits of these ‘Pathetic slave armies’ during Finlands recent history.