It think it would make the electorate more cognizant of wars cost, and restrict war to conflicts for which the majority is willing to pay that price personally rather than letting their mouths write checks cashed by other peoples butts. I do not think a "conscription-franchise" would make current military members any more or less inclined to war, but requiring current civilians enlist would instantly make them and their families far more deliberative about war. Of course, many would reject conscription even at the cost of their voting rights, but that strikes me as not only a fair but wise trade.


There are certainly different ways to have skin in the game, but that only underscores the shallow public support for our recent wars. Given public outrage at rising gas prices since the Iraq invasion it is hard to imagine any support for WWIIs rationing or war bonds. In post-Vietnam America, war is something the majority declares but the minority wages. Homefront "sacrifices" consist of no more than flags on our lapels and ironic "Support the Troops" bumperstickers. Countries committed to war on two fronts do not demand tax cuts.

Your second point is the key, because if military service were a prerequisite for voting war would be impossible without support from a majority of those fighting. Some might not consider the war just or necessary, but would never authorize it unless they considered it somehow beneficial. As it stands, Americans are too easily convinced of wars legitimacy, because those fighting tend to be the least opposed and those not fighting can "patriotically" endorse war at no personal cost.