During World War II, six or seven people would cram into a single car to save fuel and tires for the war effort. Families hoarded leftover cooking grease so factories could make glycerin, a chemical used in munitions. Coins were minted from iron so copper and nickel could be diverted to the military. Millions of Americans earmarked a portion of their meager paychecks to buy war bonds. Children held scrap aluminum drives and gave up their metal and plastic toys for the good of the country.

Sugar, meat, coffee and rubber were strictly rationed. Men wore pants without cuffs and women skirts with smaller hems to save fabric. Each evening, automobile and street lighting was dimmed or shut down altogether. Most Americans could only buy three or four gallons of gas per week. When they did take to the road, they were always mindful of one of the era's signature slogans: "Is this trip necessary?"

Today, our leaders tell us we are at war with a new, just as deadly enemy. Indeed, global terror has slaughtered thousands of innocents in our homeland and tens of thousands abroad. Its leaders espouse a visceral, twisted, venomous hate all too reminiscent of the Nazis.

"I believe this war is more akin to World War II than Vietnam," President George W. Bush said, with considerable justification, last week. "This is a war in which we fight for the liberties and freedom of our country." He and others warn that many more will die and billions of dollars will be spent before our security can possibly be ensured.

It was against such a backdrop that the Senate took up debate this month to raise America's abysmal automobile fuel economy standards for the first time in 15 years. Our cars have long been the heaviest, least efficient in the world. They became even more so in the last decade as regulatory loopholes allowed trucks to be marketed as passenger vehicles.

Driven by skyrocketing automotive fuel consumption, America was forced to import nearly 60 percent of its total crude oil needs by 2001, up from just 40 percent in 1990. Most oil imports are refined for gasoline. About a third come from the Middle East, more than double the level of America's dependence on the region during the 1970s' Arab oil embargoes.

To fill its gas tanks, America tenders around $30 billion per year to nations like Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Iran. Each of these countries is markedly undemocratic and anti-Western. All contribute to quasi-military, educational or propaganda activities linked with global terror. Osama bin Laden's personal wealth is largely derived from Saudi oil proceeds. President Bush has declared that Iran and Iraq are part of an axis of evil against which we fight.

While battles still rage in Afghanistan, and amid a constant invocation of the Second World War, it might be thought that the Senate would find that reducing the need to finance our enemies is a prudent wartime policy. Perhaps we could gain a measure of commercial leverage over belligerent countries otherwise inclined to ignore our concerns. Better still, the sheer volume of funds likely to flow into the hands of the worst terror networks would be cut way back.

A coalition of pro-war conservatives and centrist Democrats, however, didn't see matters that way. They overwhelmingly defeated the proposed fuel economy standards.

"This is, you know, the nanny government telling you what you've got to drive," explained minority leader and bill opponent Trent Lott. "I guess there's some people that think we ought to all be driving Honda Civics. I don't. With a growing family of grandchildren of three, you know, I don't want to be forced into [the gas tax]."

No sacrifice, it seems, was too much to ask from our nation's greatest generation as it fought and won last century's most awful conflict. In 2002, however, we are prepared to do whatever it takes to meet the challenges history has put before us, just so long as not a single soccer mom-- or U.S.-- senator is inconvenienced.

To be sure, there are a few war hawks who grasp the notion that armed conflicts are usually easier to win when not simultaneously financing one's opponents. "We have known since 1973 that we need to reduce our dependence on Persian Gulf oil," wrote Charles Krauthammer, possibly the finest conservative columnist in America, a few weeks after the terror attacks. "But we have never been serious. It was assumed that Sept. 11 would make us serious." Krauthammer calls for such measures as gas taxes, auto efficiency standards and more domestic drilling to cut oil imports.

Similarly, Martin Feldstein, former chairman of President Ronald Reagan's Council of Economic Advisers, recently proposed that energy vouchers be used to "free us from foreign oil." Feldstein would give all Americans vouchers for a fixed allocation of oil that is much lower than present total consumption. Lower energy users would then be free to sell their vouchers to higher volume consumers. Almost everyone, he thinks, would eventually be able to buy the gas they wanted while the nation's overall energy demand would be dramatically curtailed.

Regardless of the approach, the Senate's refusal to address our oil related security risk in the very heart of battle is simply unconscionable. No one proposes that cars be banned, or that their use be curtailed to even a fraction of what has been imposed in other moments of national emergency. Perfectly safe, rugged, comfortable automobiles are available today with double the average fuel economy of comparable vehicles. A small sacrifice is all it would take to make a huge dent in America's energy demand and provide us with crucial strategic flexibility.

Sadly, such foresight appears beyond the reach of our leaders. Today, a faded ration coupon mounted on a museum wall or a photograph of a girl tearfully donating her doll to be melted into rubber forever expresses the bravery and fortitude of our ancestors at war. Years from now, I wonder, what will future curators exhibit to illustrate the depth of our commitment to freedom and decency?