> The notion of bringing back the draft is stupid. Most US senior military leaders don't even want conscripts: they're generally unmotivated, cause morale problems, and don't stick around. For an offensive expeditionary force they're worse than useless. Comparisons to Israel are irrelevant because they operate a territorial defense force which isn't expected to conduct sustained power projection far beyond their own borders.

If most Americans don't want to fight sustained wars overseas, America should not fight. That is the point. It is easy to make declaring war a distant political issue when a tiny subset of the population fights, yet creates problems for generations across the world. The effects of interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan and Iran will likely continue to be felt for generations, and likely make future attacks on the homeland more probable given the asymmetric consequences of the United States continuing to create failed quagmires abroad.

The Iraq War would have probably not happened the way it did if there was a draft. If most Americans don't want to fight, then America should not go to war. What could be a simpler democratic principle?

Instead you seem to support and make excuses for a volunteer military, one with an (at minimum) two decade history of failure, whose hubris and excesses have multiplied in a time of increasing political polarization, lack of faith in institutions (gee, I wonder why?), and as you say, technological change.

Why would this not be a time for radical reform? Why should we ever allow any president or congress to inherit such an institution?

Generals shouldn't always get what they want. Civilian oversight cannot be effective if the gap between civilians and professional service members is so wide. Kennedy famously had to talk down professional generals that bordered on homicidal. Luckily, he was was a veteran himself and was willing to resist their more outrageous impulses. We may not be so lucky next time. More people in the room, and in the military can only lead to better outcomes. If this makes a few trigger happy generals less happy, so be it. It should not be so easy to send men into battle. That is the problem you are failing to appreciate. The problem with the military is that it is too easy. As such, your claim about it being underfunded strikes me as some type of semantic game. If you listen to the alcoholic running the Pentagon, we are wildly succeeding. He doesn't seem to take his job seriously enough. Perhaps it is because it is rather easy for him to obliterate targets and cause chaos from the sky, with minimal repercussions? The cost of this escapade approaching what, $100 billion? And you want to give them more? For what mission are they underfunded? A land invasion? More bombs? More air defense? What more should we take from the American taxpayer to make this make sense? Maybe we should repeat 2003 and invade an adjacent country that has nothing to do with this again?

If everyone had to serve, then perhaps the next time they will have to actually convince the country and the men in their care of the virtue of their purpose. Nothing could be more desirable in a democratic society.