Admittedly, one can consider the words service and duty to be antiquated.
Especially when you take them together and make a duty of service out of them.
No wonder, then, that their opponents are aiming for just that.
The Young Liberals, for example, think that Steinmeier's proposal for a community service comes from a mothball.
The general manager of the joint general association, Ulrich Schneider, speaks disparagingly of a "classic from the summer slump".
As if the fact that something is old automatically already contains the judgment about it.
There are certainly good arguments against compulsory service.
For example, that the Bundeswehr would be overwhelmed if there were too many conscripts.
It's already starting with the barracks.
The army has too few of these to accommodate hundreds of thousands of adolescents every year.
She's low on ammo to teach them how to shoot and not enough camouflage to clothe them.
Anyone who wants conscription back will have to spend billions and wait years for it to work again.
From the point of view of the critics, it also has dubious benefits.
What is needed is not trembling conscripts who are overwhelmed by just unlocking a rifle, but highly specialized professional soldiers.
Some refer to the Basic Law, which prohibits forced labor.
And many point out that the pandemic has pushed enough of the youngsters.
Years have been taken from them by the measures, now another should not be added.
Professional army and conscription are not mutually exclusive
All of these objections are true.
But they are only particularly coherent if you omit some things.
Example forced labor.
The Basic Law states that no one may be forced to work.
But it also says: "Except within the framework of a conventional, general, public service obligation that is the same for everyone." You have to stop reading in the middle of the sentence to derive from the Basic Law that an obligation to serve would be unconstitutional per se.
In addition, nobody has demanded that the military police should move out if someone refuses to work in the old people's home for a few months.
Why not define the will to serve the community as part of fitness?
If you don't want to bring it up at all, you're just unsuitable.
Compulsory service would also send a signal if it were not enforced unconditionally.
The arguments against conscription are also shortened.
The Bundeswehr may have other concerns at the moment.
But that doesn't mean that a conscript army is nonsense.
Ukraine shows what such a country is capable of.
When postmen and professors defend their country together, they can withstand even an overwhelming opponent.
A powerful professional army and conscription are not mutually exclusive.
Rather, they complement each other.
You can see that in Finland.
The professional soldiers are responsible for the complicated things, cyber attacks, large-scale offensive operations, air defense.
Reservists and conscripts guard important roads and prevent acts of sabotage.
They are only sent to the front when the going gets tough.
At least they'll know how to use an assault rifle.
Hardly surprising, then,
that there are defense professionals who can get something out of a conscript army.
This is often left out of the discussion in order to stifle it immediately.
Keyword moth box.
Then there is the objection that young people have done enough in the pandemic.
That's the easiest to refute.
Because compulsory service would only affect future generations and not those who are 17 today.
It might even be liberating.
For everyone who would like to do a voluntary year but don't dare because they are afraid of falling behind in their professional life.
Even someone who initially opposed it can benefit from the ministry.
Because he gets to know people with whom he would otherwise have nothing to do: the elderly, the frail, the disabled and people with different levels of education.
Because he learns what moves them and that for many it is more important what a liter of gas costs at the gas station than a liter of freshly squeezed orange juice.
You don't even have to talk about social cohesion.
One can agree with Thatcher that there is no such thing as a society, only a collection of individuals.
But in order for them to be able to live together peacefully, they have to speak the same language.
This means more than the national language.
They have to understand what drives and drives their neighbors, even if they don't want to invite them to a barbecue.
If compulsory service could make a contribution to this, it would certainly not be wrong - and it would certainly not be outdated.