Why serve in the military today? For most people, the reasons are complicated, but perhaps the majority had a personal experience, someone they knew in the military who led them to consider serving -- for personal growth, for benefits, for patriotism or some combination of all. But the circle of those who know someone who has been in the military is shrinking, we are drawing from an increasingly tight group. So the military itself is becoming increasingly distinct from society as a whole -- and in particular, distinct from those who are most influential in shaping and deciding national policy.

The nation is hearing echoes of this complaint in words of some of the generals currently criticizing Rumsfeld: “My sincere view is that the commitment of our forces to this fight was done with a casualness and swagger that are the special province of those who have never had to execute these missions -- or bury the results,” said Lt. General Greg Newbold in Time magazine recently.

We have experienced that disconnect. We were raised in a privileged culture that misunderstands and underestimates the meaning of military service. People like us -- Frank, a novelist, and Kathy, a lawyer and former Clinton White House aide -- never would have been thought about this subject, let alone written about it, except for the fact that we were “drafted.”

The last draft in America is a draft of the heart. Someone we love is in the military, and before we know it, sometimes against our will, we too are part of the military family. We certainly claim no personal credit for the fact Frank's son (an enlisted Marine) and Kathy's husband (a Marine officer) volunteered. If it had been up to us initially they probably wouldn't have. But because of this experience our life has been richer, and our understanding of being American is deeper.

Now, we are trying to make the case to that privileged culture that serving in the military is not just about personal preference, but for the good of the country. But we notice that the effort to broaden the class-base of the military -- to include more members of the upper middle classes -- is not necessarily popular among those who serve. “Who needs ‘em?” is how this position can be summed up. In other words, if someone has neither the need, because they have better options, nor the desire, why should they serve?

We believe that the increasing gap between the most privileged classes and those in the military raises three major problems. It hurts our ability to make the best policy possible. When those who are disproportionately influential in making, supporting and protesting defense policy in government, the media and in universities know no one in uniform, have never heard of an NCO or what role they play, can't describe the different functions of the various services, we simply can't get the best defense policy possible. Moreover, non-service undermines the strength of our civilian leadership, who no longer has significant numbers getting the experience and wisdom that comes from national service. Finally, we feel the class disconnect makes our military less strong in the long run because there is a lost sense of community and a threat to democracy that is the result of what happens when a society simply begins to accept a situation that is inherently unfair.

When those who benefit most from living in a country contribute the least to its defense and those who benefit least are asked to pay the ultimate price something happens to the soul of that country. It may be legal, but is it right?

During World War I and II and the Cold War, many people from the influential classes served, either due to the draft, or by volunteering. Almost half of the graduating classes of Princeton and Harvard entered the service for a tour of duty in the fifties. Today, less than one percent does.

The change has everything to do with the Vietnam War and the rise in what sociologists call “rights consciousness.” In other words, our personal rights have come to mean more to people than their duties, what they owe. After the Vietnam War, America made what turned out to be an almost universally popular decision to create an all-volunteer military. For the first time in history the country had a large military, wars, and no conscription. It seemed like a perfect solution. If you wanted to join, fine. If you didn't that was fine too.

Military service became just another item on an ever-lengthening list of personal choices. As a result, it has become increasingly comfortable for most young adults of our elite classes to avoid even thinking about military service. Those with “better options” simply choose not to serve.

Take Stanford. In 1956, 1,100 Stanford students enrolled in ROTC; today there are 29. They are trained off-campus taking military science and national defense courses at Berkeley or Santa Clara, classes for which Stanford University grants them no credit -- although the students can get credit on campus for Hip-Hop or Yoga.

Sociologist Jim Burk describes this phenomenon as a natural outgrowth of a public culture in which the only agreed upon ethic is the utilitarian ethic, based on what John Stuart Mill called the “happiness principal.” The popular version of utilitarianism, according to Burk, leads us “to prefer (and to think ourselves right to prefer) pleasure over pain, profit over loss, winning over losing -- and to suppose nothing else matters more.” Few historians think this is a recipe for a strong country, however.

Some people consider their reaction against military service to be a political statement. However, military service is not a referendum on political activity. “Should the country engage in this war?” is politics; “Shall I serve my country because it asks for its members to serve?” is patriotism. It is a gesture of profound citizenship to declare that; “I will take part in this country and its collective decision-making, because someone needs to do it.” It is also an affirmation that there are bigger truths than simply what seems true (or fun) “to me.”

The more critical someone is of the military or our actions using our military, the more they are bound -- if they want to be taken seriously -- to encourage broader military participation. It is after all, our military, not someone else's. And for those who wave the flag and support the troops but also consider their own family exempt from service because of the wealth of “better options” available to them -- we suggest they take the magnetic yellow ribbon off their SUV and re-think their position.

The true challenge for the individual American citizen is to enter into the long experiment of self-rule in our nation of 300 million souls, and in doing so be willing to vest basic legitimacy in our democracy and its core institutions. Why should we? The government makes so many mistakes! Perhaps Winston Churchill provided the best answer--democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the alternatives.

Listen to a podcast of Military.com's interview with the authors.