I say no, no, no, no, no and HELL no.
The proposal Rep. Charles Rangel floated recently (which probably spurred on this thread) was for a MANDATORY draft, which would take in everyone physically capable of serving in an age range, regardless of race, creed, religion or other considerations. Its defenders point to the fact that the military is disproportionately composed of the poor and minorities, using it as one of the only escape routes from poverty and bad situations, and that an all-encompassing draft would somehow fix this inequity.
My take on this:
* Anyone who thinks there would ever be a truly "fair" draft is kidding themselves. Consider: no physical exemptions for anyone fitter than Stephen Hawking. No religious or moral exemptions -- Quakers and conscientious objectors would have to tote a gun like everyone else. No hardship exemptions; if you're a single parent, that's too bad, and you'd better find a caretaker. No collegiate exemptions, no running to join the National Guard, no possibility of using financial or political connections to wangle a better deal -- you get the letter, you're in a uniform. What are the odds that THAT would ever go through?
* Likewise, once everyone's in uniform, the distribution of _duty_ needs to be just as equitable. Biff and Muffy need to have just as much chance of toting a rifle in grunt duty in Baghdad as Tyrone, Luis and Billy-Bob. No "Operation Human Shield" and "Operation Get Behind The Darkies," for those who've seen the South Park movie.
No pulling strings for the rich and influential to get them assigned to cushier jobs -- say, managing the motor pool at a stateside base instead of marching through North Korea. How is THAT going to be implemented, and (just as importantly) enforced?
The unlikelihood of the previous two points neatly punctures the idea of a "fair" draft. It'll be like jury duty -- those who can escape it will, and those who can't will be stuck with it, which destroys the very premise of Rangel's argument (that the children of the rich need to serve, too).
Next, where do you find the money, facilities, equipment, time and instructors to properly train an exponentially-larger wave of new recruits? (By properly, I mean something beyond "Here's your uniform, here's your gun. Point THIS end of the gun at the bad guys. Your plane is waiting." Taking everyone in an age range for months of training is one hell of an undertaking.)
Next, how do the armed forces cope with millions and millions of people who vehemently don't want to be there? ("Fragging" isn't just a term used in Quake, folks. Figure in desertions, rebellion, and no-shows to be hunted down.)
Next, how is this an improvement for the poor and downtrodden? At present, many of them wind up in the military for lack of a better option, and this is held to be a bad thing. Under Rangel's plan, they would _ALL_ wind up in the military for a period of time. And this is a step in the right direction?
Most importantly -- just what in the hell is our government going to do with millions and millions of soldiers?
Whatever they want to do, wherever on the globe they choose to do it, that's what. Given our current administration and its advisors, the LAST thing I'd want to do is hand them a nearly unlimited supply of cannon-fodder conscripts that have no voice as to their fates.
Justifications for "war" aside, the simple truth is this: when it comes to armed warfare, _no one_ should be placed in harm's way (killing and being killed) who does not choose to be there.