"Out of curiosity, what do you think will "make" US public "see the need for draft"? I mean, global conflict of scale, intensity and duration of WW1 & 2 are unlikely and (if I understood your post correctly) you don't think that GWOT needs it."
Need and political acceptance are two different issues.

The military's need is for increased manpower in the Army and Marines generally and in critical, highly trained, specialties where there are shortages. Say, for example, certain language skills. Most people across the political spectrum, though not all, agree that such a need exists.

Filling that need is a question of costs or trade-offs. The draft would entail real costs, not simply provide a ready supply of less expensive manpower so Congress should look at possibly a combination of options, including outside the box ideas, instead of eliminating anything a priori. It may very well be that a new draft isn't the best way to go in terms of utility and I think public support would be lacking right now.

Speaking of which, what would make the public " see" the need? Frankly, a military disaster on par with a second 9/11 and nothing less.

Bush could have had the Army and Marines expanded in the wake of 9/11 by issuing a call for volunteers. Congress would have given him a draft, had he asked or nearly anything else at that particular moment in time. Public political support hinges on mass emotional reactions to conflict at the moral level, not statistical or factual arguments. Factually, the U.S. needed a large military build-up prior to Pearl Harbor but FDR, as Tom pointed out, could only muster support for a barebones effort by a single vote in Congress. On Dec. 8, FDR could ask for, and get, the moon.