A persistent question is whether the United States armed forces need to be expanded. Oddly, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, regarded as a highly hawkish official, claims that new “efficiencies and innovations” will allow our troops to handle their challenges without increased numbers.

Many, including the military people who have to handle the many jobs at hand, say that is unrealistic considering the demands in Iraq, North Korea, Afghanistan, the Balkans, the general status in the Middle East and, now, Liberia.

Those opposed to troop increases contend that the U.S. budget already is strapped and would be hit even harder by more forces and their equipment.

Michael O’Hanlon in a recent Los Angeles Times analysis titled “Do the Math: U.S. Needs More Boots on the Ground” agrees that the armed services need to be pushed to innovate, privatize and reform their practices. There are ways to get more with less.

“But Rumsfeld goes too far when he claims that we can get by with no additional soldiers in today’s U.S. Army,” O’Hanlon adds. “Even with more allied help — which Rumsfeld isn’t doing enough to recruit — we are likely to need at least another division within a year. That’s about 15,000 soldiers; accompanying support troops will double that number. Given our all-volunteer force, we need to start recruiting now.”

Recruitment or augmentation of some kind is vital. Some of our people now in service, particularly those in hazardous duty, may not choose to re-enlist. So current numbers probably will shrink. The current troop rotation base for combat regions will be greatly altered and the recent notification that foreign service will last a year or more, will hinder re-enlistments. What about the reserve forces and their expansion?

The Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force and Coast Guard are considered undersized now by many experts. If their ranks continue to drop as new demands occur, where does that leave our protection and our readiness?

In view of our growing needs, there has been some discussion in favor of restoring the military draft. There are numerous new approaches, including a solid and equitable lottery system, but there still are too many uncertainties to sell that program at this time.

A better approach would be universal military training, in which all young people would remain on standby for a given period. It would be practical for all young people, male and female, to be committed to active duty of some kind between the ages of 18 and 20 and then be kept on ready reserve for an additional five years.

Such a plan is used effectively in Sweden and Switzerland and it could do wonders for the severe challenges that are sure to face our military structure in an extended period just ahead.

Opposition to universal military training would surface in a heartbeat in the United States, but the option has tremendous potential to do the country great good and to help its young citizens develop as more dedicated, responsible people.

The shaky status of our military might right now calls for serious consideration of some type of universal military service.