That is what Lieutenant Colonel Paul Yingling advocates for in this article in the Armed Forces Journal:

In many ways, the prosecution of the war in Iraq is a cautionary tale against bypassing the war powers of Congress. If members of Congress had to impose conscription and fully mobilize the National Guard, they might have been more skeptical of the case for war. Had members of Congress been required to cut popular domestic programs to pay for the war, they might have insisted on prosecuting the war more intelligently and vigorously. Instead, Iraq edged toward chaos over the course of four years, costing the lives of thousand of volunteers and hundreds of billions of dollars in borrowed money. Members of Congress held hearings and asked questions, but took no action to change the course of events in Iraq. The public did not have to endure conscription as it did during the Vietnam War; the nascent anti-war movement therefore never approached the size and intensity of its Vietnam-era counterpart. Congress played only a minor role in the 2007 change of strategy in Iraq, the so-called “surge” that has created a remarkable, if fragile, turnaround. Nonetheless, the underlying fact remains that our conduct of the war in Iraq calls into question both the intelligence and vigor of America’s capacity to wage war.  [Armed Forces Journal]

Read the rest at the link because LTC Yingling does write a good defense of his viewpoint.  Basically he believes that the active duty US military should be reduced in size and the National Guard expanded.  He believes that the lack of a large active duty military would force politicians to have to draw from the National Guard and even a draft to have enough soldiers to fight a prolonged conflict.  If politicians have to use the National Guard and especially a draft to field a force large enough to fight a prolonged conflict it may cause them to put more thought into whether to go to war or not.

I think the big hole in this argument is that the draft did not prevent the politicians from getting the nation involved in the Vietnam War that was far more bloody and less of strategic significance than Iraq.  In fact I think you can make the argument that the draft in fact allows the politicians to get the nation involved in even larger bloody conflicts.  For example there was far more US soldiers that fought in the Vietnam War with the maximum troop level in 1968 reaching 536,100 US soldiers, in comparison to the US “Surge” in Iraq where the troop levels reached it highest point at 157,800 US soldiers.  Clearly the limit to the size of the active duty military prevented the US from expanding the war any further like what happened in Vietnam.  Instead a new strategy to maximize the forces the US military does has was implemented.  How different would the Vietnam War have been if the US could not bring its troop levels above 157,800 and instead had to reevaluate its strategy?