The purpose of this essay is to problematize the conflicts of interest in the supply of personnel within Sweden's growing total defense. By analyzing the government's policy for the total defense obligation and its ability to steer towards its policy goals based on its ability to manage the supply of personell according to prioritized needs. The study adopts a qualitative approach and the essay constitutes a case study of a broader policy formulation and central governance problem in a complex society with multiple implementing agencies. The study of the policy for the total defense obligation is theory-consuming, and the empirical material has been analyzed using a framework and a qualitative content analysis. It appears that the framework regarding a successful implementation is only partially met. This is because there is a conflict in the goals of the policy about what should be prioritized as most important. There are no clear guidelines on where one or several individuals should be drafted for war duties in a conflict of interest between the different categories of the total defense obligation, especially at an aggregated level. It is expected that the implementing actors can adopt a holistic perspective on where an individual should be placed for war duties to create the best conditions for the total defense. The holistic assessment assumes that the implementing actors have extensive access to information and knowledge about the country's war planning. Furthermore, it is evident that the actors responsible for the personell of supply can register all or parts of their personnel with the support of the general service obligation, which leads to a "first come, first served" principle where the number of individuals who are available for the total defense obligation that can be claimed with military or civil duty decreases. The policy for the total defense obligation does not take into account that the total defense will need to economize the personnel resources when the total defense is growing.