by David A. Bell

Just read the moving e-mail from Richard Stern's student about the war. It is sobering to consider the disconnect between her experience of the war in Montana, and Stern's--or mine (I personally know exactly two people who have gone to Iraq with the U.S. military, one of them a surgeon who never sets foot outside the International Zone--and I suspect this puts me two up on a fair number of TNR readers). But when it goes to the differences between World War II and today, the disconnect itself is the point, because in World War II, it did not exist. Most able-bodied men served, regardless of social class, and everyone knew scores of men and women in uniform. The war touched everyone. It's worth remembering, though, that it is the current pattern, not World War II, which is the historical norm. Historically, most modern societies have been happy to let their least privileged sons do the bulk of the fighting. It's only in wars that require mobilization on a gargantuan scale--the World Wars, essentially--that military service comes to touch nearly every family. Even in the U.S. Civil War, wealthy families on both sides could buy their children exemptions from the draft. I'm not saying that the current situation is one we should be proud of. In a lot of ways, it would be healthier for American society if the burden of defending it were spread around more equally (easy for me to say, of course--I'm 44 years old, and my son is 8). But it's also pretty unrealistic. The only thing likely to change the situation is another massive terrorist attack.