Ecologist and botanist here. While intraspecific territorial behaviour is a common thing, murder and organised murder is rare. Using biological patterns to explain behaviour in society is called biologism and extremely dangerous because it implies there are natural laws in existence for the behaviour of societies.
The laws our societies rely on are constructions based on ideas, not on universal laws which are true everywhere in the universe (even without humans). And there is the main difference to animal territorial behaviour: not an ideology is the driving force behind the territorial behaviour e.g. of a goose but genetics based instinct. Developed over hundreds of thousands of years to be optimally fitted to their niche in an ecosystem (That is what is meant with "suvival of the fittest": To fit in a role within a very complex system of collaboration and dependencies).
While instinctive behaviour can be observed in humans too - like the urge to protect small children and cute animals from harm - all of us grow into a culture with its own constructed logic (and paradoxes).
To return to the topic of the article: If drafting is a thing or not is a question of the culture you are living in. As long as a society is administering itself by voting for those who decide about the set of rules (laws) for everyone, it is the responsibility of everyone to discuss the rules, ask for adjustments and vote accordingly.
As I am a late child my parents were both born in NAZI-Germany. My mum in Düsseldorf (Germany) and my father in Innsbruck (Austria). Their fathers and brothers were drafted to fight the Allies. No matter what their actual believes were. My grandfather was the only child of many to survive the first world war. He was orphined as a toddler.
You can imagine that "calling to arms" has no positive reputation in my family.
And still I see a point in drafting, if it is about defence.
But (and that is a huge BUT): Going to war means to violate existing international laws (remember: human made). Therefore it can't be won (it is not a game, there is no judge or score that defines the rules for winning and loosing). It can only be ended by decision! That's why it is called peace treaty and not win-certificate.
As both - peace and war - are not natural laws but human constructs, it is the responsibility of those who (co)decide about the culture they are living in.
Most people on earth will agree that breaking peace is a bad thing and the ability to keep peace is a sign of strength. To change the mood of a population to pro-war a lot of time and money has to be invested in lies and propaganda.
If our government is weak and struggles to keep peace we can vote for a better one. If your society doesn't allow votes, there is the right to revolt to (re)establish a government that serves everyone (not rules everyone). (It's not a human right per se, but e.g. Germany has the right to revolt in its Grundgesetz/constitution due to what its people learned from the past).
As the executive power (police) needs to be counterbalanced, I am strongly pro professional armies and vice versa. Police must be strong enough to protect the government from the army, just in case of an attempt to establish a dictatorship via armed forces. (Power makes corrupt, societies have to be resilient against corruption).
But what I find lacking in all those discussions about drafting, (re)arming and warfare, is an honest discussion about peace keeping.
Peace keeping needs all of us. It is the true sign of a powerful society. It needs the ability to listen to everyone, no matter how far left or right, to identify the actual needs and find solutions that don't involve the abuse of power.
It is easier as it sounds. Most societies are (still) peaceful even when facing many (resource based) challenges.
Humans don't like to kill other humans, if they know them. If our societies would agree to include spending for peace keeping into the budget for wars (let's say half of it), I am sure (opinion!) most conflicts wouldn't result in open war.
Just imagine what would happen, if the EU would invite the whole russian youth for a summer holiday at host families within all EU countries? Would they return and confirm that "we" are all evil fascists" as the propaganda states? I doupt it.
Naive, you say?
Take an example from history: After WWII the French and the German decided to end the centuries long Erbfeindschaft (inheritance of being enemies). One of their measures was to establish pupil and student exchange programs. Also cultural "clubs" like brass music groups established exchange programs. It didn't matter that they were not able to speak each others language. Food, drink, music, socialising, playing games and sports together - there are many ways to interact even without a common spoken language. With todays technology even (simple) conversations are possible between "strangers" (or "aliens" as the current wording tends to frame it).
Just look at this platform: many people from many countries interact respectfully. Why? Because it is each persons decision to keep peace.
So much from me. Sorry if my contribution happend to be a bit long.
May peace be with you.