No insights to offer here. I just found it interesting:
As the Iraq war approaches its fifth anniversary and 4,000th U.S. military fatality, about three dozen cities with populations above 100,000 have not lost a servicemember in the conflict, according to the Pentagon's list of the deceased's hometowns.
The fact that so many relatively large cities have been spared a fatality in Iraq underscores how sporadically the war has affected much of the American home front.
The story offers a couple of explanations. One is that recruits tend to come from rural areas and small towns more than big cities. Another is sheer chance. With 4,000 dead out of a population of 300 million, there is a big random element involved.
Comments
I could have sworn they were all inner city black kids who had no other choice.
Kinda shoots Charlie Rangels' theory in the ass now doesn't it?
Love that POV, Tim.
Well said.
Seems we had a LOT more dead in WWI & WW2 (in single battles alone compared to Iraq), and yet no one was really lambasting either war, saying those that served were "disadvantaged" and we should pull out immediately.
(Oh, you meant shoot Rangel's THEORY...I see now)
I was thinking something else...more apropos.
;)
B.G.