There is something deeply disturbing taking place in Europe. The generation that remembers war only through documentaries is increasingly willing to tell the generation that would actually have to fight one that military service should become compulsory. France provides perhaps the clearest example. An IFOP survey found that 64% of French respondents supported compulsory military service for people between 18 and 25. But look beneath that number and everything changes. Among the 18-to-24-year-olds who would actually be affected, support was only 40%. Among those aged 50 to 64, it soared to 80%. Among people 65 and older, 71% supported it. It is always easier to demand sacrifice when somebody else’s body will be making it.
France abolished compulsory military service decades ago, but military service is creeping back into the political conversation as Europe prepares for the possibility of a prolonged confrontation with Russia. Macron has now launched a voluntary national service program beginning with 3,000 young people, with plans to expand it to 10,000 annually and potentially 50,000 by 2035. They receive military training and €800 per month, and the government insists the present program is voluntary and that these recruits are not intended to be deployed abroad.
France’s armed forces chief, General Fabien Mandon, caused an uproar when he said the country needed the strength to “accept losing its children” if it was going to deter Russia. How could any mother or father sacrifice their child to an endless war? What will these neocons do to brainwash the public into believing this sacrifice must take place?
For years, European leaders told younger generations that nationalism was antiquated, borders mattered less, Europe had moved beyond war, and economic integration would make the conflicts of the twentieth century impossible. Now those same institutions are rediscovering patriotism because they need soldiers. Suddenly the nation matters again when governments need an 18-year-old to defend it.
At the same time, what exactly has this generation inherited from their lovely government? Housing has become increasingly unaffordable. Government debt continues climbing. Taxes consume enormous portions of income. Pension systems are strained by aging populations, and younger workers are expected to finance benefits for generations far larger than their own. Now the same political establishment wants them to shoulder Europe’s military burden as well. Governments spent decades borrowing against the future, and the young were already going to inherit that debt. Apparently, that was not enough.
This is precisely where Europe’s demographic crisis collides with its military ambitions. France, Germany, Italy, and much of Europe are aging. Governments need young people working, paying taxes, producing goods, starting businesses, having children, supporting pension systems, and maintaining the productive economy. Now they also want a larger pool of soldiers and reservists. You cannot keep demanding more from a shrinking generation without eventually discovering that there are not enough young people to satisfy every promise politicians made before they were born.
The numbers reveal the contradiction better than any politician ever could. Only 40% of those aged 18 to 24 in the IFOP survey supported compulsory service for their age group, while support reached 80% among those aged 50 to 64. The people most enthusiastic about compelling the young to serve are therefore not the people who would be fleeing a drone strike far away from home.
There is something profoundly wrong when the older generations sit comfortably at home discussing the necessity of sacrifice while debating whether the young should once again be prepared for the trenches. If France itself were attacked, young French men and women would have to decide what defending their country means to them, and polling suggests many would indeed be prepared to serve. But demanding compulsory service for somebody else’s generation is not sacrifice. Sacrifice is what you are willing to give yourself. Sending somebody else’s son or daughter to pay the price for your geopolitical decisions is something entirely different.