Who Fights? The Myth of the Citizen-Soldier

This paper explores the widespread notion of the citizen-soldier as the backbone of the modern nation-state.  We examine the laws of a number of countries (in Europe, the United States, Asia, and the Middle East) governing who may and who may not fight, and who has actually been engaged in combat over the course of the past couple of centuries.  We consider the participation in warfare on behalf of various states of citizens, mercenaries, colonial soldiers, professional soldiers, “private military and security contractors,” and others, and how these have changed over time.  We document the shift in West European and American society from (occasional uses of) conscription to professional armies in the context of a relatively pacific period in their histories.  We also observe that fighting at the behest of the world’s wealthiest countries in the contemporary period is shifting dramatically toward forms that require few soldiers – “warfare without warriors.”  As James Sheehan and others have argued, these societies have been extensively “civilianized,” and soldiering has become a marginal experience heavily influenced by civilian values.  We note that while many groups in “civilianized” societies wish to have little to do with the military, some – particularly, women and gays and lesbians – have been eager to participate in military life as part of their attempt to attain full citizenship.  The relationship between citizenship and military service is thus complicated and changing over time.