To be used as what? Certainly not soldiers. We have never drafted people into the Navy or Air Force and would not need to because the draft would encourage enlistments into alternatives to the Army, just as it did in the 1950's.
As it stands now the average white female doesn't make it to the end of the enlistment. Why draft an element of the population that we know has 40% less upper body strength than their male counterparts into a job which potentially requires maximum upper body strength? Anecdotally, I've never seen a barracks that I'd want my sister or neice to be living in...and I would not want to impose that atmosphere on any woman. Aside from producing abortions and bastard children that burden the military budget, there is not much to be said for it. BTW, try getting the out of wedlock birth statistics from the Army. It is not something the institution wants to talk about.
Resuming the draft is a good tool to fairly and efficiently staff our army. Using it to create some national socialist "national worker" program is not necessary, and also creates an equivalence in service that is not beneficial to the military. We could end up with a situation as the Germans are facing now, where most men opt for civilian service to avoid the rigors of military life.
To be used as what?
To be used in what ever capacity women are serving in now - the needs of the service. But, that's about a draft. I'm talking about registration.
The registration of 18-year-old men is a contingency. The registration of 18-year-old women would be the same thing.