Major.League.Infidel
Make Love and War
+303|6905|Communist Republic of CA, USA
This is a story that ran in the local paper.  It really hit home to me.

Douglas Fischer wrote:

Five years into the war in Iraq, not one service member from Oakland has been killed in battle. Sixty miles to the east, the ranching and bedroom community of Tracy, one-fifth Oakland's size, has lost seven soldiers to the war.

San Francisco has had three of its residents perish, while the Central Valley towns of Modesto, Stockton and Bakersfield - with a combined population equal to that of San Francisco - have buried 20 men and women. Detroit, a city of 900,000, has lost one, the same as Ismay, Mont., with a population of 26. It's a pattern that is repeating throughout nation: a disproportionate share of the war's casualties hail from rural areas.
Full Article

The separation of the American Public and Military has been growing more and more lately, and it's these kind of statistics that show the growing gap between rural communities and urban ones.

Nearly 4,000 service members have died in the war since fighting began March 19, 2003. Almost 2,400 of the dead hailed from cities and towns with a population of 80,000 or less. Meanwhile, 537 have died from cities larger than 300,000.

Put another way: For every 100,000 people living in a large city in this country, one service member has died in Iraq. For every 100,000 people living in this country's smallest cities and towns, two troops have perished.
*Shakes head and walks away.*
topthrill05
Member
+125|7005|Rochester NY USA
Not surprising.
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|7028|132 and Bush

http://www.miamiherald.com/776/story/458872.html

Remember the war in Iraq?

    The question isn’t entirely facetious. The war has nearly vanished from TV screens over the past few months, replaced by stories about the fascinating presidential campaign and faltering economy.

    Yet Americans continue to fight and die there, five years after the war started in March 2003. …

    Statistics clearly illustrate the diminished attention. For the first 10 weeks of the year, the war accounted for 3 percent of television, newspaper and Internet stories in the Project for Excellence in Journalism’s survey of news coverage. During the same period in 2007, Iraq filled 23 percent of the news hole.

    The difference is even more stark on cable news networks: 24 percent of the time spent on Iraq last year, just 1 percent this year.
Bauder blames the change on the “fatigue factor”. Supposedly, Americans have tired of the war and of hearing about it, and so the news networks have stopped covering it. The presidential campaign gave them an excuse to cut back on expensive war correspondence, and instead allowed them to cover a much less costly domestic story. It also allowed them to avoid the danger of reporting in a war zone.

All of that sounds reasonable, but Bauder manages to skip over another much more likely reason: the news got better, and the media doesn’t want to cover it. He provides evidence for this in his own analysis:

It’s possible to pinpoint the exact week that the switch turned off. The war averaged 30 minutes per week of coverage last year on the three network evening newscasts up until Gen. David Petraeus, commander of the U.S. forces, testified in September about the surge’s progress, according to news consultant Andrew Tyndall. In the last 15 weeks of the year, the broadcasts collectively spent four minutes per week on the war.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
ThaReaper
Banned
+410|7066
My city has lost a lot of soldiers, I knew a few of them. =/
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|7028|132 and Bush

"The separation of the American Public and Military "

http://www.miamiherald.com/776/story/458872.html

Remember the war in Iraq?

    The question isn’t entirely facetious. The war has nearly vanished from TV screens over the past few months, replaced by stories about the fascinating presidential campaign and faltering economy.

    Yet Americans continue to fight and die there, five years after the war started in March 2003. …

    Statistics clearly illustrate the diminished attention. For the first 10 weeks of the year, the war accounted for 3 percent of television, newspaper and Internet stories in the Project for Excellence in Journalism’s survey of news coverage. During the same period in 2007, Iraq filled 23 percent of the news hole.

    The difference is even more stark on cable news networks: 24 percent of the time spent on Iraq last year, just 1 percent this year.
Bauder blames the change on the “fatigue factor”. Supposedly, Americans have tired of the war and of hearing about it, and so the news networks have stopped covering it. The presidential campaign gave them an excuse to cut back on expensive war correspondence, and instead allowed them to cover a much less costly domestic story. It also allowed them to avoid the danger of reporting in a war zone.

All of that sounds reasonable, but Bauder manages to skip over another much more likely reason: the news got better, and the media doesn’t want to cover it. He provides evidence for this in his own analysis:

It’s possible to pinpoint the exact week that the switch turned off. The war averaged 30 minutes per week of coverage last year on the three network evening newscasts up until Gen. David Petraeus, commander of the U.S. forces, testified in September about the surge’s progress, according to news consultant Andrew Tyndall. In the last 15 weeks of the year, the broadcasts collectively spent four minutes per week on the war.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6838|'Murka

So more people from rural areas are joining the military. It's not very surprising, and I don't think it speaks to a separation between the military and the American people. It does, however, speak to differences in opportunities for people graduating from rural schools and those graduating from urban schools. Additionally, it speaks to differences in attitudes between kids raised in a rural situation and those raised in an urban one.

Kids raised in a rural situation (generally) want to leave that and see the country/world. The converse is not as generally true for urban kids.

What's a relatively inexpensive way to leave the rural area and see the country/world? Join the military.

Really, the difference in numbers is more about the rural/urban divide in the country than the military/civilian divide.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein

Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Enzzenmachine
Member
+20|6772

FEOS wrote:

So more people from rural areas are joining the military. It's not very surprising, and I don't think it speaks to a separation between the military and the American people. It does, however, speak to differences in opportunities for people graduating from rural schools and those graduating from urban schools. Additionally, it speaks to differences in attitudes between kids raised in a rural situation and those raised in an urban one.

Kids raised in a rural situation (generally) want to leave that and see the country/world. The converse is not as generally true for urban kids.

What's a relatively inexpensive way to leave the rural area and see the country/world? Join the military.

Really, the difference in numbers is more about the rural/urban divide in the country than the military/civilian divide.
qft
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6832|North Carolina
Yeah, FEOS summed it up well.
Mekstizzle
WALKER
+3,611|7048|London, England
I don't see why it should matter if soldiers are dying from rural or urban areas, a death is a death.
topthrill05
Member
+125|7005|Rochester NY USA

Mek-Izzle wrote:

I don't see why it should matter if soldiers are dying from rural or urban areas, a death is a death.
That has nothing to do with the point of the post, but you are correct.
GunSlinger OIF II
Banned.
+1,860|7071

ThaReaper wrote:

My city has lost a lot of soldiers, I knew a few of them. =/
you live in a military town, its to be expected.
GunSlinger OIF II
Banned.
+1,860|7071

FEOS wrote:

So more people from rural areas are joining the military. It's not very surprising, and I don't think it speaks to a separation between the military and the American people. It does, however, speak to differences in opportunities for people graduating from rural schools and those graduating from urban schools. Additionally, it speaks to differences in attitudes between kids raised in a rural situation and those raised in an urban one.

Kids raised in a rural situation (generally) want to leave that and see the country/world. The converse is not as generally true for urban kids.

What's a relatively inexpensive way to leave the rural area and see the country/world? Join the military.

Really, the difference in numbers is more about the rural/urban divide in the country than the military/civilian divide.
I think perhaps its more to do with rural people choosing combat MOS's over those from urban areas.
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,991|7059|949

The ratio of people in the city to people in the suburbs (or "rural areas") joining the Armed Forces is not the same.  Proportionately, more rural citizens join the Armed Forces than citydwellers.

There could be many factors, as FEOS and GS stated.  It would be really hard to pinpoint a general reason why that happens, other than the proportional representation among rural/urban areas.

Last edited by KEN-JENNINGS (2008-03-17 17:35:57)

GunSlinger OIF II
Banned.
+1,860|7071
still think soldiers from rural areas tend to join combat arms more so than non rural
motherdear
Member
+25|7078|Denmark/Minnesota (depends)
cities = scared shitless liberals
rural areas = proper men
generallisation of course.

after what i experience the cities are generally against the war and are more liberal than the rural areas, but it might just be me.
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6832|North Carolina

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

still think soldiers from rural areas tend to join combat arms more so than non rural
...or you could say a lot of inner city residents already get their daily dose of combat, so to speak.  It's obviously not the same as war, but death still hangs in the air....
GunSlinger OIF II
Banned.
+1,860|7071
Im from the inner city and I could say without a doubt nothing anyone experiences in the states can compare to actual combat.
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6832|North Carolina
I'd hope not...  but I'm just saying...  if you're already used to death and gun violence, you usually aren't in a hurry to face more of it on the battlefield.
GunSlinger OIF II
Banned.
+1,860|7071
its not as common as the media would want you to believe.  really, the only people exposed to death and gun violence are the ones that are active participants in that lifestyle, for the most part.  since thats the case, most of them are unwilling or unable to get a decent job or education, let alone be qualified for military service.
ATG
Banned
+5,233|6956|Global Command
As has been stated; there are less opportunities and more firearms in rural communities, more traditions involving service.
liquix
Member
+51|6881|Peoples Republic of Portland
we may have tired of the war, but i bet the people fighting and dying in it are way more tired. I wonder why rural raised soldiers are dying more, is this related to percentile of people fighting? MOS based on geography? Grunts vs PoG? Which armed service these rural soldiers join most often?

It could be many many things which these higher rural deaths are attributed to. Either way, it's horrible because I am from a rural area and many of my friends are serving as we speak.

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard