Sweden has what’s known as “Totalförsvar” (Absolute Defense) - which is basically preparing society for war or severe crises (i.e. diaster relief). There are two layers to it:

  • Military Defense: Which is managed by the Swedish Armed Forces dwelling more on protecting national borders (as in defending their own country), dettering attacks and conducting armed operations in cooperation with allies like NATO.
  • Civil Defense: This involves all of society beyond the military. It ensures the survival of the population and continuity of essential services (i.e. healthcare, electricity, water, and telecommunications) even under severe stress or during war.

This is NOT the same type of draft that was once enforced in the US (i.e. Vietnam) where people are randomly selected via a draft lottery or fighting in a war distant from their own country under false pretenses from politicians or being brainwashed by propaganda. The thing is, can civil defense work in America if imposed towards the average joe?

Not discussing Vietnam including both Iraq & Afghanistan, rather what would be the public opinion if the same form of draft from Sweden were to be enacted in the US? (not to fight overseas, rather closer to a border guard but in the position of a soldier defending the country or being given duties equivalent to FEMA or any first responder).

  • Vox_Ursus@lemmy.world
    2·
    17 hours ago

    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.