[hornokpleas]

Both Switzerland and Israel have very high levels of belief in the purpose behind their country's military engagement. In Israel because (whatever you think about the causes or history of the wider conflict) most people feel, generally correctly, that the military is critically necessary to protect them from terrorism and other threats. In Switzerland because of the strong commitment to neutrality. The military is only designed to protect the country from external threats and the principle that it wouldn't get involved except in self defence is extremely important.

If the Swiss army was sent to distant countries to protect Swiss economic interest, to enforce a certain system of government, or even in 'self-defense' but against nebulous and theoretical threats, rather than the imminent risk of a direct attack, Swiss people would widely refuse to serve.

Similarly in America. If, for example, Canada carried out an aggressive land invasion of the United States, a very large number of people would be willing to serve, and accept a draft as well as poor conditions, low pay etc.

On the other hand, if there was a draft for young people to participate in controversial US overseas operations like Iraq, Afghanistan, etc, there would be widespread resistance. Many people would evade the draft either illegally (going to prison, disappearing, moving abroad) or legally (using college exemptions, National Guard, bone spurs, etc). Some people in the military would refuse to follow orders, pursue criminal or radical political activity (more than they already do), sabotage or go AWOL.

This was attempted with the Vietnam war. It wasn't stopped despite its success. It was stopped because it didn't work and threatened to destroy the entire fabric of US military forces.

[perl4ever]

I'm not sure whether you are disagreeing with anything I wrote.

>It wasn't stopped despite its success. It was stopped because it didn't work and threatened to destroy the entire fabric of US military forces.

Whether something "works" depends on what you define its purpose to be.

Saying the draft "didn't work" is exactly where I think we went wrong.

"Threatening to destroy the entire fabric of US military forces" (or of society in general) constitutes "working" if it prevents the continuation of that sort of war and in the long run, preserves a country that is as we would like it to be.

It was the war that didn't work.

[wolverine876]

It was also done in WWII and WWI, at much greater scale and to great success, as well as the Gulf War and many smaller conflicts. The UK did it for a long time before the US.

You are welcome to your beliefs about international involvement, but often people see it otherwise.

[hornokpleas]

It doesn't matter what my beliefs are. If a significant minority of people who are going to be drafted believe that the war is unjust or unnecessary or that they should not be the ones to fight it, the effects which I described will happen. It is clear that for the engagements in Iraq and Afghanistan this was the case.

There was no draft for the Gulf War. The United States entered WW2 after an unprovoked act of aggression against US territory.

I'm not sure which 'smaller conflicts' you are referring to because conscription has only been used in the Korean war, the American Civil War and the American Revolutionary War, other than the 3 already mentioned.

You are technically correct about WW1. The situation has changed in the more than 100 years since that conflict.

[perl4ever]

>The United States entered WW2 after an unprovoked act of aggression against US territory

I think this common statement may be a bit misleading whether or not strictly accurate.

From what I've read, the Flying Tigers were authorized by Roosevelt, and the only reason they failed to engage in combat with Japan until after Pearl Harbor was because of unforeseen delays.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Tigers