Lt. Col. Paul Yingling has been talking about this over the past few months at Armed Forces Journal. Not a bad read...

Well I know where ‘Rubber Ducky’ stands on this issue and I am right there with him. National Service is detested among the military for the obvious reason that they do not want family and friends to have some skin in the game. How to organize such a conscription plan is another matter and would need to be made as inclusive as possible with none of the demoralizing deferment nonsense of the Vietnam era. In a nation of 300+ million people a lot more people are available than the armed forces needs but there are other areas of society that could use the service potential of that manpower. Perhaps there could be a special education expense inducement for those that accept military service versus civilian service?

Ostensibly militias morphed into the Guard, but there are differences. And I don't won't even grace those violent vigilante conglomerates of pudgy guys with a penchant for shooting at Hispanics or census takers with the term militia.

But the idea of mandatory service in a National Defense force, locally organized, for all able-bodied voters (male and females from roughly 18-whatever the retirement age will be) has pretty strong legal precedent. Why not? There would be problems, of course. How do you decide on leadership? There would have to remain a small, professional officer corps. But for the nco's, merit and time (as at present) combined with a democratic vote? Militia membership, technically, wouldn't be a draft. It would also encourage civic participation, far more lively than at present. For cons. objectors there would still remain the potential for service in a noncombatant role. And no deferments or payouts. No more rich man's war, but a poor man's fight. You would have to have some sort of standardization of equipment, but that would be decided based on Congressional decisions and the input of all the militias' leadership. While centralization of procurement makes everything run much smoother, it also makes it much easier for massive graft and nobid contracts.

On the other hand, the idea of incorporating everyone into a National Defense force as it exists at present would be a horrible idea. It would in essence be a gigantic conscript force to be used at DC's whims, and far less susceptible to the influence of lobbies.

I'm no military strategist, but I'd imagine such a force would be a lumbering, unwieldy thing to get into action. Far less capable or competent than the current system. But getting US soldiers into wherever at a moment's notice, in my opinion, takes second stage to concerns about our political future.

Feel free to tear this idea apart, it's completely abstract and hypothetical.

"and far less susceptible to the influence of lobbies." should read "and far more"
The subsequent paragraph deals with militias, not with a draft-based force.

With apologies, LMT.

Most people never think hard on this topic. Draft women too? What about those with babies? What about drug users? What about flaming gays? What about fat bodies, which are some 25% now. What about felons, which are a huge number now? What about the Cat IV idiots? What about the rich kids?

We will end up drafting a small slice of society, who will later see themselves as suckers.

A. Is entirely legal, as has been tested numerous times to the Supreme Court level. Any views to the contrary live in tinfoil-hat territory.

B. Less important than having 'skin in the game' itself is the effect this prospect has on the political decision to go to war. If the people don't give a shit (as has been with the AVF), the executive can do whatever he wants with a force of hired guns (as proved by the last band of poltroons and chickenhawks, Bush and Cheney and their crowd).

This democracy thing, this idea that the people ultimately wield the power of the state, it relies on self-interest to function. When visions of grandeur suffuse the presidency without counter from a populace personally uninvested in the adventure, we tend to invade Mid-Eastern countries on the slimmest of pretext and no price is paid at the polls. In contrast, both Korea and Vietnam were tamped down and then ended because of vox populi.

The draft is an instrument of the people and the Founding Fathers' fears of a standing army well founded. While military efficiency is an important consideration, it does not trump the interests of the people. If you have a draft, war becomes much more a last resort and much less a tool of ego.

...Something occasionally put forward to strong-arm politicians to being more receptive to their desires; in this case (perhaps, just speculating), a draw down from Iraq and Afghanistan?

Knowing that (even the idea of) a draft would suddenly put pressure on the civilian administration to be more realistic about throwing the military into wars with indefinite objectives and limited means, perhaps the general has less-obvious goals in this case.

Democrats have in the past floated the idea of a draft for exactly this purpose; as a disingenuous way of actually forcing a more practical debate on what the best application of our limited resources really is. Not that it worked, nor do I think it will work now that they are in the driver's seat. But its something worth considering.

A modern day draft is reasonable and realistic. Training, equipping, housing the influx of new recruits and their families would be cheap and inexpensive. In addition, paying for them would not draw from other rescources.

Warm Regards,
Flying Unicorns and Fire Breathng Dragons

This actually isn't the first time that it's been suggested recently. A general in Iraq (sometime between 2005-2007 I think) suggested it. Judging by the public's response and the subsequent withdrawal of the comments I suspect it was put out to test how the public would see the idea.

In any case, I can't see the public accepting a draft in the absence of a conventional war.

No, been there did'nt work. See bottom line results of Vietnam,pick your own sources. Want skin in the game? Have the people vote on declaring war,with the proviso that the standby draft goes into immediate effect and an income tax increase equal to the total cost also upon a majority yes vote( 51%). Let's see how many wars happen then-I'm willing to bet that the vote after 9/11 to go after AQ no matter where they were would have been 90% plus- for Irag < 50%.

The All-Volunteer Force. We've been in Afghanistan since 2002 and iraq since 2003. If that's success, failure must be really grim. That's the record: the AVF has not won either war and by all credible predictions will not do so in the future.

Had we a draft (and all the political will that goes with its implications in the decision to war), we'd have resources, people, and will to end these conflicts. Instead we have ground down the Army and Marine Corps, put the Guard and Reserve in the wilderness for a generation, wrecked a whole army's kit that will be left behind in the sands, and piled up huge future bills for rearmament and readiness.

The unsaid reason to consider a draft is that the All-Volunteer Force is inadequate for large and extended conflict. The All-Volunteer Force is a stark failure. Again: show me where it has succeeded.

I am currently a freshman in college who is attending Marine OCS this summer, so I run into this topic a lot with my friends and their parents. Many of my friends have a hard time understanding why I am interested in the military and are personally opposed to serving, especially in wars they don't agree with.
I personally would rather see a national service law rather than a draft. Our current military situation, although overstretched, is not so dire that we need an influx of millions of new troops. As has been noted, many young people are probably not best suited for military service- but they could be of great value doing community service work at home and abroad. At the same time though I strongly believe that my generation (myself included) could benefit from military training and values and that a stint in the armed forces would create a more aware and politically involved citizenry. The issues mentioned earlier about incorporating women, "flaming gays", and drug users into the military could be addressed by using Israel's conscription regime as a model. I am troubled by the lack of interest in the majority of my classmates in public service- at my school, landing a job on Wall Street is seen as the holy grail of post-collegiate achievement. Those interested in military service are a miniscule minority- probably less than 20 or so in a student body of 4,000.