I believe there’s an important distinction to be made between drafting, which relates to how the needs for manpower are met, and doctrine, which stipulates how that manpower is used.
There’s nothing to say the US couldn’t (or doesn’t) have a similar doctrine since totalförsvar at its core relates to keeping society functioning during wartime and for most civilians means a legal obligation to just keep going to work as usual. If need should arise there’s nothing to say that additional civilians wouldn’t be drafted into the armed forces since everyone between 16 and 70 years has an obligation to contribute to the defense of the country according to the current needs.
That said, military doctrine differs severely between the countries; whereas Swedish doctrine has been focused more on defense and parted from the possibility of allied intervention, the US has a doctrine focused on projection of power and pre-emptive strikes (or overtly meddling in international affairs if you will). Accordingly, the needs and underlying structures of the military differ as well, including practices for drafting and training of personnel. As long as the US can’t conceive of war arriving at their own doorstep, and believe themselves to nip every threat by the bud, they won’t see any need to pivot to a defensive doctrine, and doing so anyway without any apparent need would only project weakness.
I believe there’s an important distinction to be made between drafting, which relates to how the needs for manpower are met, and doctrine, which stipulates how that manpower is used.
There’s nothing to say the US couldn’t (or doesn’t) have a similar doctrine since totalförsvar at its core relates to keeping society functioning during wartime and for most civilians means a legal obligation to just keep going to work as usual. If need should arise there’s nothing to say that additional civilians wouldn’t be drafted into the armed forces since everyone between 16 and 70 years has an obligation to contribute to the defense of the country according to the current needs.
That said, military doctrine differs severely between the countries; whereas Swedish doctrine has been focused more on defense and parted from the possibility of allied intervention, the US has a doctrine focused on projection of power and pre-emptive strikes (or overtly meddling in international affairs if you will). Accordingly, the needs and underlying structures of the military differ as well, including practices for drafting and training of personnel. As long as the US can’t conceive of war arriving at their own doorstep, and believe themselves to nip every threat by the bud, they won’t see any need to pivot to a defensive doctrine, and doing so anyway without any apparent need would only project weakness.