The Rural War

Discussion in 'Middle East - General' started by -Cp, Jul 20, 2005.

  1. -Cp
    Offline

    -Cp Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2004
    Messages:
    2,911
    Thanks Received:
    360
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Earth
    Ratings:
    +363
    WHICH American communities pay the highest price for the war in Iraq? A look at the demographics of soldiers killed reveals that Iraq is not the war of any one race or region. Rather, it is rural America's war.

    Altogether, a nearly equal percentage of Americans aged 18 to 54 live in counties with a million or more inhabitants as live in counties of 100,000 or fewer. And yet, of the soldiers who have died in Iraq, 342 came from densely populated counties while 536 came from smaller ones. Derived from Pentagon and census data, this chart shows the Iraqi war death rates for every 100,000 people ages 18 to 54 by the size of their county's population.

    The difference is visible not just in the size of a soldier's county of origin, but also in its location. Counties disconnected from urban areas tend to have higher death rates, regardless of population size. Small rural counties have a death rate nearly twice that of counties that have the same population but happen to be part of metropolitan areas.

    Why should this be? It's not that Iraqi insurgents are singling out rural soldiers, or that commanders are putting them at particular risk. Rather, the armed forces themselves must be disproportionately drawn from rural communities - a fact not immediately discernible from recruitment data, which report the race, age and education of recruits, but not their home counties.

    This is above all an economics story. Military studies consistently find that a poor economy is a boon to recruiting. The higher rate of deaths from rural counties likely reflects sparse opportunities for young people in those places.

    When the Iraq war memorials go up in years to come, these monuments to heroism and sacrifice will be found less often in thriving urban centers than in lagging rural communities.

    [​IMG]

    http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/20/opinion/20bishop.html?
     
  2. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    I might be wrong, but I would bet this has been true in nearly all wars that US participated in. Those in the rural areas tend to take their 'responsibilities' more to heart than the city folks who think someone else will 'do it.'
     
  3. freeandfun1
    Offline

    freeandfun1 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Messages:
    6,201
    Thanks Received:
    295
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings:
    +296
    I was just going to say the same thing. One of the TV news mags did a special on this recently. Of course, they chalked it up to bad Bush policy. The reality is, people like ME (I joined the Army from a county of under 10,000) do it to get out! Throughout our history those living in rural areas have always carried a higher burden per capita. Part of the reason is the feeling of dedication to country and part of the reason is that it is an "out" from small town living.

    One thing is for certain, not always, but I would say generally, small town soldiers make the best soldiers. Their commitment to Duty, Honor and Country is something that is they grow up respecting and they aren't brainwashed by a bunch of liberal hacks.
     
  4. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    I agree. Perhaps WWII was different, full conscription, but in general, I think all you posted is true. Thanks Free and all you other rural guys, who've given disproportionately! :salute:
     

Share This Page