This is clearly not the type of statistic in which one wants to be a national leader. The Oregonian's Mike Francis pens the article, entitled "War's toll far worse on Oregon":

One of every 210 Oregon Guard soldiers in Iraq has been killed since deployments began last year, while the National Guard's death rate is one in about 606. As of this week, about one of every 379 active-duty Army soldiers in Iraq has died.

The disparity between the death rates would have been more pronounced before the soldiers of Oregon's 3rd Battalion, 116th Cavalry reached Iraq this week. Removing those 560 soldiers from the equation, the casualty rate of the Oregon Guard would be about one in 148.

Col. J. Michael Caldwell, deputy director of the Oregon Military Department, said Thursday that the death toll -- all but one coming from the Guard's 2nd Battalion, 162nd Infantry -- is grim confirmation that the Army's 1st Cavalry Division, to which the battalion is attached, places a great deal of trust in the Oregon soldiers.

"Hurrah for that reputation," he said. But, he noted, "it puts you in the breach."

I know that I do not entirely understand military culture -- or understand it to much of a degree, for that matter -- but I can't for the life of me fathom how anyone could read this as a good statistic. It boggles the mind.

Given the fact that recruiting levels in the National Guard have fallen 30 percent below their targets in recent months, I cannot say that such news and relating statements would lead many more people to want to sign up. A stunning 40 percent of American forces on the ground right now are from the National Guard, a level of combat unexpected by most of those troops who signed up for duty. If we're running 30 percent behind on 40 percent of our troops -- I'm no math wiz here -- I know we're going to have to find troops somewhere else or pull out. This is not good.