Over the past month or so, I've had the occasion to chat with six people who told me that their child was serving with the military in Iraq. Each of them volunteered the information and all spoke proudly of their kids.

	William R. King is University Professor in the Katz Graduate School of Business at the University of Pittsburgh (billking@katz.pitt.edu)

Subsequently I reflected on these coincidental brief conversations with a security guard, a lawn service guy, a police officer, a janitor, a store clerk and a nurse.

My reflections led me to realize, in my gut, because I'd always known it in my head, that the Iraq war is being fought by the children of workers. During that same period, I've had many conversations with professors, business executives and professionals -- and none of them has made any similar mention of their kids in the military. Their children are simply not doing the job being done by the children of the "working class."

As we enter the third year of what is going to be a long period of engagement of our military with terrorists, I think that we need to question the fairness of this. We need to examine how the people who serve are chosen and whether our society should be concerned with the equity that is involved with our "volunteer army."

The children of educated, well-to-do families have little motivation to volunteer. They have options -- college, training courses or good jobs. Children who graduate from high school without such prospects find that there are significant incentives offered by the military -- enlistment bonuses, training in skills that have potential for civilian jobs, money for college when their service is completed, travel and decent pay.

In peacetime, this is inequitable, but perhaps best overall. The money, training and educational opportunities that are offered benefit kids who probably would never be able to otherwise obtain them. The military, as it has for many decades, serves as a vehicle for raising youngsters out of poverty and for opening up new horizons for kids whose range of vision is limited.

However, in wartime, these benefits may be outweighed by the inequitable distribution of the costs and risks.

What can we do about this? Since the military is not meeting its recruiting goals, one obvious answer is to reinstate the draft. However, the draft, even when it was conducted on a lottery basis, was also inequitable because it was full of deferments and because it left people feeling lucky or unlucky.

During the late Vietnam War, I studied this problem as a senior staff member for U.S. Sen. Sam Nunn. I concluded, and he agreed, that a universal national service program was the solution. Such a program would require that every able American perform a period of national service upon attaining the age of 18 or on high school graduation, whichever comes later.

Of course, there are far too many kids who would become available each year than the military could possibly absorb, so how could this plan be made to be feasible? We worked out a proposal that made it both feasible and economic. The senator's proposed bill involved having many different service opportunities beyond the military made available. National servers could tutor kids in urban and rural areas; they could work with the disabled, the aged and the sick, providing services that cannot be otherwise afforded.

These diverse opportunities could be organized by civilian service organizations and operated by their local branches, which would allow many servers to live at home during their service. The required expenditures would replace those for existing federal programs such as youth job training, welfare for the relevant age group and existing service programs.

Unfortunately, the law that was enacted was only a pale imitation of our proposal. It created a small, voluntary program that did not include a military option.

I have maintained my monitoring of this idea over the years and been in close contact with the group of analysts who believe, as I do, that a universal national service program would solve many of our societal problems, give young people a learning opportunity at a critical stage in their lives, and solve the current military enlistment deficiency on a basis that is equitable.

This is so because national service jobs could be designed so that they are not taking work away from paid workers. They could focus on things that aren't otherwise likely to get done at all.

All of the tasks done by national servers would involve significant training so that skills are developed to complement the positive feelings about themselves that would come with performing meaningful jobs that help others. At this age, most kids naturally want to do good for others and the country needs to give them an opportunity and take advantage of their inclinations.

If young people are given the option of choosing among alternative ways to serve, many will choose the military -- not because they are given tangible incentives, but because they are patriotic and want the adventure and travel that the military offers. This would be true of affluent kids as well as poorer ones.

Such a program would ask every young person to "give something back" to a country and society that has given much to all of us. The satisfaction that this would engender in young people would raise their self-esteem in a way that few other things could possibly accomplish. Over time, everyone would have served, giving us a shared national experience that would pull the nation together.

A national service program is as relevant today as it was then, perhaps more so. It would do a great deal of good for our society and importantly, it would be fair to all.