This is a tough one. I like to think I'd be willing to sacrifice a lot, especially if what was asked was compelling. A nationwide sacrifice would require real innovation, so that said sacrifice (a) does not seem arbitrary, (b) contributes to the war effort in such a way that it minimally conflicts with Americans attitudes and beliefs. The ultimate goal in an act of national sacrifice should be to engage, energize and mobilize as many Americans as possible, regardless of whether they support the war in question. Thus, a sacrifice that, say, increases weapons production would be less preferable to something that directly supports and improves the well-being of the troops.

Very basically, it seems to me that what should be asked of Americans is time. How to secure, manage and utilize this time is where the realy innovative thinking would be required. But whatever time is asked, it should be significant. If Americans can leave work for weeks, or even months, to serve on a jury at reduced wages (a sacrifice to the individual as well as the business), than there's no reason we shouldn't be able to do the same in support of the troops. Preparing meals, work at hospitals, caring for veterans --- I don't know how it could work that you could still keep your citizen servants relatively safe, and that the campaign of national sacrifice isn't more expensive than its worth. But those are some basic guidelines.

Can't wait to read the article, John.