The Future of National Service
Attempts to elicit information from Ministers about their intentions regarding the future of conscription have so far been unsuccessful, and at this stage it is right that they should be. The Prime Minister last week announced that the Government had set on foot a com- prehensive review of the structure of the armed forces. That must necessarily include the future of National Service. National Service itself cannot be considered apart from its relation to the armed forces, particularly the army, as a whole, and the future of the armed forces must be determined in connection with arrange- ments still being worked out—indeed only beginning to be worked out—in consultation with the American and the other European signatories of the North Atlantic Treaty. That does not alter the disturbing fact that at the moment we have not an adequately efficient army—and to say that is in fact to say too little. Recruiting for the Regular Army is bad, and getting worse. Till that improves National Service (to which in itself there is singularly little opposition anywhere) is essential, for existing commitments demand an army of a certain size. But whether eighteen months' service on the present basis yields as good a return in military efficiency as two years' service with a smaller annual intake may well be doubted: Moreover the adoption of the latter plan would lead to obvious difficulties of selection. Two things are clear. One is that National Service can be neither abolished nor seriously reduced in scope at the present moment. The other is that if and when it can be got rid of it should be. Even while the official comprehensive review" is in progress the fullest discussion of alternative possibilities is desirable.
Previous page
