Who should fight? It is no idle question in an era in which thousands of U.S. troops are fighting and dying in Afghanistan and Iraq to protect Americans back home. In fact, the answer has profound consequences for the way policymakers make decisions about how these wars are waged. On Dec. 2, scholars from Stanford, the University of Chicago, and the School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University examined this issue as part of the Stanford Ethics & War Series (2010-2011), co-sponsored by the Center for International Security and Cooperation. Their conclusion: there is a wide and troubling divide between the 2.4 million Americans who volunteer to serve in the military and the many millions more who choose not to.

The statistics are revealing: During World War II, some 16 million men, and several thousand women, served in the military, representing 12 percent of the U.S. population. They came from all walks of life, and those who stayed home made sacrifices of their own for the greater war effort. But while the U.S. population has more than doubled since then, the military is now just 4 percent of the size it was in the 1940s. At the same time, today's wars require virtually no sacrifice at home, and those who enlist come from an extremely narrow demographic segment of the U.S. population. According to Stanford historian David Kennedy, who spoke at the event, in 2007, only 2.6 percent of enlisted personnel had exposure to college, compared to 32 percent of men age 18 to 24 in the general population. The military is disproportionately composed of racial, ethnic, and other demographic minorities, he noted. The political elites making the decisions about warfare seldom have children serving. Among the 535 elected members of Congress in 2008 only 10 had children in the military.

The implications of this are vast. A lack of personal familiarity for many Americans with the military breeds to some puzzling behavior, says Eliot Cohen, the Robert E. Osgood Professor of Strategic Studies at the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies. Congressmen say they can't imagine U.S. troops committing the kinds of atrocities recorded at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq; left-leaning anti-war advocates at Moveon.org refer to General David Petraeus, the highly regarded commander of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, as General Betray Us. More than that, a large gap between those who make the decisions about war and those who fight it raises serious questions about accountability. The Vietnam-era draft inspired thousands of Americans to push back against Washington's decisions to expand the war. Conversely, the existence of the all volunteer army, in effect since 1973, may have one been one reason for the relatively smaller level of protest in the run up to, and the execution of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Indeed, at a 2006 Oval Office meeting with President George W. Bush, Kennedy said the president told him that if the draft had been in place he "would have been impeached by now."

The gap also raises concerns about civic unity. Earth-shaking events such as World War II and Sept. 11 brought citizens together, says Jean Bethke Elshtain, the Laura Spelman Rockefeller Professor of Social and Political Ethics in the Divinity School at the University of Chicago. But sustaining that unity is extremely difficult, and becomes even more so when one segment of the population is willing to give its life to protect Americans while the vast majority go on with their lives without making any sacrifice of their own. To Elshtain, this raises a basic issue of fairness and social justice. There is a general lack of equity, she says, when "some families bear a radically disproportionate burden of service and sacrifice." As their peers "study or work or frolic, they die" in Iraq or Afghanistan.

Redressing this imbalance is an extraordinary challenge. Surely a draft would help. But it raises ethical questions of its own. There is also no political will to reinstate it. Nor, says Cohen, is it necessary or even desirable from a military perspective. A better set of solutions, he suggests, would start with expanding the depth and scope of relations between civilians and military personnel. He recommends siting military bases around the country so that civilians in New England, say, where there is virtually no military presence, can have greater exposure to an institution about which many of them know very little. Elite universities such as Stanford and Harvard, which have long prohibited on-campus ROTC activities, should start revisiting and revising their policies so that over time the military will have a wider diversity of background. Doing so might enrich the campus experience, and it could also lead to a stronger military in which the highly educated graduates of America's elite educational institutions would take a greater role influencing America's elite military institutions. For now, Kennedy observes, we have effectively "hired some of the least advantaged of our fellow countrymen to do some of our most dangerous business." And we continue down this path at our peril.

In 1998, in the twilight of the 20th century, the resignation of Indonesia's autocratic president Suharto ushered in a new political era. Corresponding changes occurred in Indonesia's economic, social, and cultural landscape. That transformation challenged and transformed the thinking of many Indonesians. One of them was Dr. Dino Patti Djalal, who recently became his country's ambassador to the United States. "I entered the twenty-first century with a new mindset," said Djalal to an overflow audience at the Walter H. Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center (Shorenstein APARC) on November 18, 2010.

As the son of a renowned Indonesian diplomat, Djalal spent much of his youth and early adulthood abroad. He attended high school in the United States and college in Canada, and went on to earn his doctorate from the London School of Economics and Political Science. Djalal's diverse professional talents and experience encompass writing, politics, and film production. Passionate about inspiring and empowering young Indonesians, Djalal founded Modernisator, a youth leadership movement in Indonesia. Before becoming ambassador to the United States in September 2010, he served on the staff of Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono as a spokesperson and special adviser on foreign affairs.

Djalal's speech at Shorenstein APARC featured his top eight personal beliefs about the 21st century. His remarks were a mixture of optimism and wonder tempered by caution. This new century in Djalal's eyes promises great progress and opportunity, in contrast to the 20th century, which he called "probably the bloodiest century ever in human history." Looking forward, he spoke of an "explosion of creativity," the growth of emerging and developing economies, and major advances in technology. The power to eradicate poverty and to achieve world harmony is within our grasp, he argued, provided countries are willing to be open to new ideas and to embrace progress and change.

The last century, Djalal noted, saw the fall and fragmentation of empires and the birth of many new states. Looking ahead, he did not foresee great changes in the world's geopolitical map. He hoped that world leaders would not promote a further proliferation of new countries, which would increase rivalry and instability. Instead the goal should be unification, as in the case of the Korean Peninsula. He spoke optimistically of the trend whereby existing countries such as Indonesia manage to "proliferise," or acquire new and greater global relevance, and advocated a "geopolitics of cooperation" among larger and smaller countries, as in the Group of 20.

Djalal stressed the need for rapid innovation and ongoing social, economic, and educational change. A nation that wants to succeed in the 21st century must be open and adaptable. Analysts once thought that major changes could only unfold over several generations, but now, Djalal argued, dramatic change can occur in the span of a single generation. In addition to developing open and progressive political thinking, said Djalal, good governance is essential if the world is to enjoy stability and prosperity in this century. Having a democratic government does not automatically ensure good governance, he argued. Political leaders must strive to build strong, accountable institutions that emphasize positive outcomes in key sectors such as health, education, and entrepreneurship.

Addressing the younger generation, Djalal said, "skill is your best currency" in the present century. Individuals, empowered by education and technology, are now free to make their way in the world based on their own talents. He recalled that in an earlier era in Indonesia, as in many other parts of the world, access to information was limited by social status, wealth, and gender. More than any other factor, according to Djalal, technology is the "most important driver of change." It is the small, innovative technologies such as cell phones and online banking that will most change the world, provided we learn "how to adopt it without destroying the human soul."

Globalization is here to stay, Djalal argued, so it is crucial to "embrace it intelligently." Indonesia is a large country. But rather than rely on superior physical size, Indonesia and other large countries must climb the global ranks on less tangible dimensions such as education, including the skill sets needed to develop their economies. While being open to engaging with the rest of the world, he added, countries must also cultivate a strong sense of national identity.

Djalal closed on a high and provocative note, suggesting that the free, innovative, and global nature of the current century provides the means for young people today to become "potentially the best generation of all previous generations." How then should we proceed, as individuals and as countries, to realize that bright future? Djalal left that question hanging in the air for his audience to consider and to answer.

October 15, 2010 was the 100th anniversary of the birthday of Edwin O. Reischauer, former U.S. Ambassador to Japan and a key leader in establishing the field of East Asian studies. George R. Packard, president of the United States-Japan Foundation, worked with Reischauer in the 1960s and recently published a biography about him entitled Edwin O. Reischauer and the American Discovery of Japan. Packard spoke at the Walter H. Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center on October 28 to share his perspective on Reischauer's life and career.

Reischauer was born to missionary parents in Japan, where he spent the first part of his life. According to Packard, Reischauer had a lifelong appreciation for Japan that deepened with time, but he also recognized that the more time he spent living in and studying Japan, the more that there was for him still to learn. Reischauer attended Oberlin College as an undergraduate and Harvard University as a doctoral student. During World War II, he worked for the U.S. State Department translating intercepted messages.

The Pearl Harbor-era view of Japan in the United States was that of a "treacherous" country-one that still surfaces from time to time, according to Packard. Reischauer's life's work was to improve American education and understanding about Japan. While teaching at Harvard University, Reischauer, along with China studies pioneer John King Fairbank, helped to build the field of East Asian studies in the United States. Packard credits their efforts for changing the British imperial-era designation of the "Far East" to "East Asia." In addition to his works such as Japan, Past and Present and A History of East Asian Civilization, Reischauer was committed to writing about Japan in popular publications like Reader's Digest.

Reischauer served as U.S. Ambassador to Japan from 1961-1966. While there, he helped to diminish the "Occupation mentality" of Americans in Japan and planted the seeds for the eventual return of Okinawa, said Packard. During his time as ambassador, Reischauer suffered many professional and personal setbacks, including the death of President Kennedy, a supporter of his efforts; the escalation of the Vietnam War, for which he drew criticism although he was not a proponent of it; and being stabbed by a deranged student. According to Packard, after the stabbing incident Reischauer was deeply concerned about generating negative sentiment toward Japan, and thus intentionally kept quiet about it to the media. After returning to Harvard University in the late 1960s, Reischauer continued to draw criticism for the Vietnam War and in later decades was labeled as a "Japan apologist."

Despite his critics, the wisdom of Reischauer's work in academia and government rings true today, as evidenced by Japan's place as a global economic power and the successful and significant role that the U.S.-Japan relationship plays in the peace and economic stability of East Asia.