Similarities and differences:

Poverty and loss, lack of social structure (friends, family) loss of societal organization, was the foundation of whether the kids are recruited even when it seems voluntary, it is not.
B: was based on religious cult where the other 2s are more based on voluntary.
C: is more taking advantage of unaccompanied children than A.

The children in scenario B, because they have been brain washed, it will be harder in the future for them to reject the context and see themselves as victims, and C is the most difficult case scenario, because of low self-esteem and possibly that lack of agency in the beginning, it might be harder for them to see themselves as capable or deserving.

Children of Scenario A has more self-decision, they have more stability in the backgrounds.
They didn’t join voluntarily in fact, they didn’t have other option. (e.g. teenager from poor region in the U.S. join the army).
The different scenarios caution one against stereotyping children associated with fighting forces as being abducted and exploited and to recognize the variety of individual scenarios that led them to the fighting forces. Those who were abducted and exploited would have different needs from those who joined voluntarily based on their different experiences and reintegration programs should be aware of different challenges in reintegrating different individuals with different experiences into communities and not have cookie-cutter interventions for all children associated with fighting forces. The differing experiences add new complexities in designing interventions for rehabilitation of children associated with fighting forces but is necessary for effective interventions that address fundamental issues of economic deprivation, social exclusion, cultural factors and the lack of livelihoods that determined the motivations of those who ended up with the fighting forces.