As a combat veteran I object strongly to Lee Davidson's column on March 17. To make his worthy point, Davidson employed the familiar tactic of comparing accidental deaths in everyday life to death on the modern battlefield. This is worse than comparing apples to oranges. It's comparing losses to sacrifices.
While Davidson's data is correct in a statistical sense, it ignores many important variables. For example, he compares total, worldwide deaths among soldiers to those within the narrow confines of combat on a larger battlefield, where only a fraction of the soldiers deployed actually see combat.I assure Davidson and the Deseret News that the combat zone on a battlefield, up close and personal, is much more hazardous to one's health than anything across the rest of the battlefield or in ordinary life -- at least for the grunts.
Like many who have seen the elephant in combat, I find it hurtful and insensitive, though not intentionally so, when a reporter tries to make a worthwhile point by comparing accidental deaths to the conscious sacrifices that every soldier commits himself to when he answers the call of his country and fellow citizens, regardless of how reluctantly he steps forward.
Please, Mr. Davidson, don't take this personally but do help start a new trend in the media. Be sensitive to our honored dead, each of whom GAVE his or her life for others, as opposed to those who lost their lives due to mishap, misfortune, even malice in ordinary life.
Claude D. Newby
Bountiful