The matter of conscription is inescapably a speculative subject to talk about. I strive to be analytical rather than argumentative or prophetic, but I want to get ahead of the mainstream on this issue.
The role the United States plays around the world goes in tandem with the strength of its armed forces, which I believe is on the path to standing against major rivals across the planet. A necessary policy for such an eventuality is the mobilization of the population, which in this case might also spark an unseen level of internal chaos.
Conscription is a concept so historically distant to the United States that it might as well be considered unnatural. Though countries like Turkey, Russia, Israel or the Nordic countries conscript their citizens, the United States ended the policy of mandatory service more than 50 years ago after its defeat in the Vietnam War. In the conflicts since then, the wars the United States was involved in were fought by a volunteer force smaller in scale but effective in combat.
The nature of a volunteer-based armed forces is suitable for today but might not be enough for the coming decades. Since the end of conscription, U.S. operations in Panama, Iraq, Serbia, Afghanistan and other countries have been successful because of sophisticated and specialized units. However, the current geopolitical situation hints toward much more difficult wars with much more serious adversaries. Anticipated conflicts in Asia against China, in the Middle East against Iran or in Europe against Russia will inevitably involve drawn-out conflicts far away from the United States.
In any of these examples, the United States will need to organize a long chain of logistics and withstand large enemy forces in terrain historically difficult to fight in. Far from the glory of fast operations like Desert Storm, a war against Iran or China will require a large military industry at the expense of consumer goods and an equally large amount of forces to invade and occupy foreign territory.
This is the environment in which we must think critically about the future of the U.S. Armed Forces and the role of conscription in it. Whether the United States should or should not be involved in foreign geographies against such rivals is a question I am putting aside for this column. What is important to consider is that a volunteer force, no matter how sophisticated, will not be enough for what are very likely to be long conflicts on the scale of Korea or Vietnam.
The cultural element of this question is especially important, because mobilizing the U.S. population will also mean a complete change in Americans’ attitudes toward the military. The Vietnam antiwar protests in the 1970s and the legacy of U.S. foreign involvement make the military, usually a bureaucratic affair in other countries, a deeply politicized one in this country. Vietnam created the kind of situation where “serving the state” was different than “serving the people.”
Statistics from 2024 show that, at best, 41 percent of Americans are willing to fight in an overseas war. That still leaves a lot of undecided or outright opposed people who will become a direct political issue at home. If conscription were introduced in the future, the inevitable antidraft movement would attack the image of the army and everything to do with it as an institution. The current environment is unstable enough that this would then become a directly divisive and escalating domestic issue.
The cost of war, especially a prolonged war, is the most important aspect of discussing this subject. If we assume that the casualties of a war against China or Iran are higher than those of the war against Iraq, the unpopularity of war can quickly increase the number of those who will resist conscription. Continuing from this point onward takes us into “alternate history” territory, but from an analytical perspective, it is easy to assume that reintroducing conscription will create more problems at home than it will solve abroad.
For the kind of wars the United States could fight in the next few decades, it will be necessary to mobilize men on the scale of 10’s of thousands or even more — to find comparisons from history, regional engagements like Korea and Vietnam saw around three to seven million mobilized each, while a major war like World War II saw 16 million mobilized men. However, and especially in the highly politicized and divided domestic situation today, the reintroduction of the draft will spark riots and a mass culture war between political groups unseen in 50 years.
I anticipate a coming dilemma for the U.S. Armed Forces between strategic needs and internal stability. In essence, I expect the United States will consider bringing back conscription, but doing so will also likely further destabilize the country from within.
How can the United States solve such an issue? Even addressing it is enough for an entire article, but the future role of the military within U.S. society requires looking into different perspectives across more columns. For the time being, my opinion is that the United States must approach the issue of conscription with the highest care — the mere thought of drafting people into wars is enough for today’s political climate to reignite a violent and turbulent tension in the United States as it did in the ’70s.
Deniz Gulay is a junior double-majoring in history and Russian.
Views expressed in the opinions pages represent the opinions of the columnists. The only piece that represents the view of the Pipe Dream Editorial Board is the staff editorial.