Sweden has what’s known as “Totalförsvar” (Absolute Defense) - which is basically preparing society for war or severe crises (i.e. diaster relief). There are two layers to it:
- Military Defense: Which is managed by the Swedish Armed Forces dwelling more on protecting national borders (as in defending their own country), dettering attacks and conducting armed operations in cooperation with allies like NATO.
- Civil Defense: This involves all of society beyond the military. It ensures the survival of the population and continuity of essential services (i.e. healthcare, electricity, water, and telecommunications) even under severe stress or during war.
This is NOT the same type of draft that was once enforced in the US (i.e. Vietnam) where people are randomly selected via a draft lottery or fighting in a war distant from their own country under false pretenses from politicians or being brainwashed by propaganda. The thing is, can civil defense work in America if imposed towards the average joe?
Not discussing Vietnam including both Iraq & Afghanistan, rather what would be the public opinion if the same form of draft from Sweden were to be enacted in the US? (not to fight overseas, rather closer to a border guard but in the position of a soldier defending the country or being given duties equivalent to FEMA or any first responder).
I’m relying a lot on the background of Sweden from this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7CsSs0eQKKA
In essence, the USA does not have the same pressures that led Sweden to their current strategy. For that reason alone, duplicating the same strategy in the USA would be a failure to meet the country’s actual threats, use up more cultural and military capital, while also throwing away some of the USA’s natural strengths (eg stable geopolitics in North America, service exports economy, vastly distributed population).
As a reminder, only until fairly recently, the USA military branches met most of their recruitment goals through voluntary enlistment, an approach that succeeded against the backdrop of 1975, when the country was deeply against the draft. What fuels the enlistment pipeline is, rather unfortunately, the poorer class, because military service is a route to a better life. In some ways, the voluntary enlistment benefits are a perverse form of state support.
So the need for a draft is, IMO, wholly inappropriate if voluntary enlistment is still viable. The next question would be whether the USA would find itself overwhelmed by crisis or disaster that it would need the civilian population to help defend the national interest.
And still, I don’t see as being plausibly, because it really shouldn’t ever get to this point: the USA still has (we think) credible nuclear deterrence and power projection. This can, and does, make up for the lack of civil cohesion and, quite frankly, civil apathy for anything beyond putting food on the table. That is to say, a threat would have to seriously infringe on the average American’s daily life before they will do something about it.
If this were seriously part of the national defense, then we’d have already lost the game.