Thursday is Army Day in Lebanon, an occasion on which Lebanese are asked to recognize the contributions of the military to such things as the safeguarding of national security and independence. From senior officers to the newest recruits, there is indeed much of which today’s military establishment can be proud. Gone are the days when it was divided from within and marginalized from without: Today the army enjoys internal power and influence rivaling that of any other state institution, a reflection of far-reaching reforms carried out in the 1990s.
It costs a lot of money to maintain this force, but the preservation of a nation’s physical integrity and political sovereignty are not had cheaply. Nonetheless, not everything connected with the military is a flawless masterpiece of statecraft. Some of the policies involved are actually counterproductive in that they erode that which they seek to build up. Specifically, the time has come for the Army Command and its civilian overseers in Cabinet and Parliament to revisit the current methods and rules pertaining to conscription. The existing system is designed to more fully guarantee the nation’s security by providing a constant flow of manpower to the armed forces and by increasing the number of civilians who have some form of military training and might therefore be helpful in some future conflict. The problem is that as things stand, the system is driving draft-age men out of the country at a breathtaking pace, robbing not just the military of their services but also the regular economy of their talents and energies.
The short-term expense of setting up an all-volunteer force may be beyond the nation’s means for now, but that should be the eventual goal. Professional fighting units are by definition more reliable, and fewer of them are needed to provide a given amount of deterrence. In the interim, there are several steps that could be taken toward the day when all Lebanese rightly view the military as a blessing to the entire nation rather than as a potential hindrance to their sons’ careers. For instance, the regime of exemptions could be expanded to include “buyouts,” especially when it comes to people whose children were raised abroad. This would help convince emigrant families that returning to their roots is a viable option that does not entail seeing their sons hauled off to boot camp. In addition, the army could do much to improve its image by doing away with the tiresome slogans that line our streets and moving instead to make itself more accessible. To this end, the Culture Ministry could help it establish special camps or workshops to familiarize young returning emigrants with their peers who were brought up here. That would do much to tear down the wall of suspicion that frequently surrounds the military and might well help the armed forces identify and recruit individuals with excellent leadership qualities who might otherwise go abroad in search of employment.
The objective of any army should be to protect the people whose taxes support it, and the best way to do that is to develop a deeper appreciation of what they value, simultaneously explaining how a military establishment functions. Once the two parties are more familiar with one another’s priorities, they cannot help but serve each other more efficiently.

Copyright © The Daily Star