The article also compares death rates among the services:
Marines are paying the highest toll in Iraq. Their death rate is more than double that of the Army, 10 times higher than that of the Navy and 20 times higher than for the Air Force. In fact, those in the Navy and Air Force have substantially lower death rates than civilian men ages 20 to 34.
This is a tad misleading. The Marines are in Anbar Province fairly exclusively while Army troops are in Anbar, Baghdad, and other regions. So Marines are probably on average in tougher areas. All things being equal, the Marines probably are paying the highest toll as far as death rates go. But things aren't equal.
One, Marines tend to have less armor and also have a culture that accepts casualties more readily than Army units. So they are more vulnerable and just used to casualties.
In addition, the Marines have little "tail"--the support troops that supply a ground force in the field. Tens of thousands of Army troops were attached to the Marines in 2003 for the invasion. And now, the Army provides the logistics tail which the Marines plug into to fight this war. If the Marines provided their own tail, the Marine average loss rate would go down while the Army--which wouldn't have extra support troops to supply the Marines--would see their rate go up.
Mind you, I'm not downplaying the sacrifice of Marines. Given where they fight, their death rate probably is the highest even if discussing only line units. But twice the rate isn't an accurate reflection of the risks Marine combat units face compared to Army combat units.
That's all I'm saying on this. Nothing is ever simple, eh?
