ICKSBURG - Eureka! Somebody sound a gong!
The Associated Press, having undertaken an in-depth investigation, has discovered:
- Nearly half the soldiers who have died in Iraq are from small-town America.
- Nearly three-quarters of them came from towns where the per-capita income is less than the national average.
With respect to Kimberly Hefling, who was called on by the AP to put this earthshaking news into words, I'm thinking she may be, in fact, that proverbial person who was born yesterday.
That's because in all wars for all time, the fighting and dying has been done by people from the crossroads, not the capitals. Most come from the vo-techs, not the Vanderbilts or Vassars.
This was true for Vietnam, for Korea, both world wars and the American Civil War. One-third or 30,000 of the British soldiers in this nation's war for independence were the so-called Hessians, impressed into service because they couldn't pay their bills.
Go back to Roman times or before. Same thing. The urban elite do the preening and posturing and the bickering that dissolves into war. The not-so-urban and not-so-elite pick up the rifles.
Today in Iraq, the insurgency includes mercenaries, many of them children, who are tired of seeing their brothers and sisters go hungry. The only difference between them and earlier mercenaries is their explosive-laden satchels can kill more people than a musket could.
Even more insulting in the AP report is the notion that the socioeconomic imbalance in military morgues is not "fair." It was William O'Hare, senior visiting fellow at the University of New Hampshire's Carsey Institute, who was called on to cement this observation. As a student of "rural issues," O'Hare was quoted as saying small towns are "being asked to pay a bigger price for this military adventure … than their urban counterparts." He called it a "basic unfairness," which, of course, begs a question to be screamed: When has any war anywhere ever been fair?
It's way past ludicrous to introduce the notion of fairness into any discussion of human violence. Should the Sept. 11 terrorists be faulted for targeting only big cities? To be "fair," shouldn't they also have hit a chicken farm in Smith County?
And what about that U.S. Grant fellow? Was it fair that he marched into Mississippi in 1862 with triple the troops of the enemy? To be "fair," shouldn't he have left 20,000 or so in Memphis?
The anger here may seem palpable, but one does tire of analysts and politicians filling broadcast time and newspaper pages with puerile pomposity.
For instance, another insipid but predictable aspect of the AP report was that people from small towns in Mississippi and elsewhere are (tsk, tsk) just not as sophisticated about issues as they should be.
Bless their stupid hearts, they tend to be more "patriotic" than city folk, as if only dunces would choose to join the military.
A reality in this country today is the same as in any country, regardless of the system of government: Some people are more affluent than others.
But a distinction between the United States and most other countries is that the U.S. military is 100 percent volunteer.
Besides, even in nations that have forced service and even if there were a U.S. draft that was truly random, there would still be a disproportionate number of poor folks in the rank and file. Why? How about because there are more of them?
What branches of the American military provide for literally tens of thousands of people each year is a way up and out. There's training in a skill or trade and a chance to learn self-discipline. There's even the opportunity for higher education.
Note the word "free" not being used. Benefits of military service are not free. The price is high for what the military is giving away. Sometimes it's life itself.
That's why it's more than a little disgusting to see as good an organization as I know The Associated Press to be engaged in trying to gin up a pity party for the poor, stupid country folks who "unfairly" find themselves in uniform.
Instead, why can't we just be glad all day every day that there are those who see national service as an opportunity, not a punishment?
Many statements that resonate with truth have been made about armed conflict. Two come to mind.
One was by R. Buckminster Fuller, an architect and engineer who should have been known as a philosopher. He said, "Either war will become obsolete or men will."
The other was by William Tecumseh Sherman, Union general. He said, "War is hell."
They say pretty much everything worth saying on the topic.
