Prince Harry and Meghan Markle

Prince Harry recently called for compulsory military service to be reinstated in the UK. It’s a bad idea, argues David Sanders, who has spent 10 years as an officer in an Infantry regiment, completing operational tours of Northern Ireland, Iraq and Afghanistan. I can see why National Service might seem like an attractive proposition. For the conscript is represents an opportunity to develop skills and boost that CV. For most of the British public (according to one recent poll), National Service appears to be an easy fix to sort out our troubled, binge drinking, ASBO-bearing youth.



But things are rarely that simple. It costs £34,000 to train an Infantryman. Turning even half the 750,000 people who turn 18 every year into useful soldiers represents a serious strain on George Osbourne’s already tight purse strings. It’s a big assumption that you would gain ‘useful’ soldiers at the end of this expensive process. A serviceman/woman’s education starts when they finish their training. In my experience a new soldier is felt to be on probation for at least their first year in Battalion.



It was after a visit to a centre for troubled youngsters that Prince Harry suggested National Service as a way to straighten out misguided youth. The military does this brilliantly, as I can personally attest having gone through the mill at Sandhurst after a relatively shaky start to adulthood. But the world, and British society, has changed massively since the 1940s and ‘50s. Today’s 16-to-21-year olds have only known relative peace, prosperity and increasing freedom. Of the 11 countries that maintain mandatory National Service, most either face a clear and immediate threat (South Korea, Israel) or heartily apply National Service to paper over economic and/or societal cracks (Greece, Russia).



In the absence of the former it is perhaps a step too far even for this government to admit it has no better idea for under-achieving 16-21 year olds than to shove them in a uniform and march them round a square for two years. I’m glad Prince Harry has raised the issue – it certainly warrants debate. I’m as proud of my service as I’m concerned that we are, as a society, failing to provide opportunities for a portion our young men and women. I’ve seen soldiers from deeply troubled backgrounds join the Army and grow, being driven through their perceived limits. However, I’ve also seen soldiers who undergo the same training, refuse to entertain the discipline and hard work required and leave after a miserable year.



National Service appears to hold little military advantage, simply creating a military wing of our social services. As a cure for society’s ills I remain to be convinced that simply sending 18 year olds to the tender ministrations of the Drill Sergeant will necessarily set them on the right track; there are better, cheaper ways. It would be better if National Service were only for those who were motivated to train, wanted to learn new skills and to serve in Her Majesty’s Armed Forces – which sounds rather like joining the military.