>sure, but not in combat roles

That is false. Middle and upper class are more likely to serve in combat roles than lower class.

Yeah because no one in a logistics or support role was ever awarded a purple heart /s.

When people say “combat,” they mean the combat arms. Pretty much any soldier could be exposed to combat, but the infantry is going to see more combat than a Human Resources soldier.

sure, and if you go back in time far enough, you can say that generals get killed in combat too

how many logistics and support personnel casualties did the US have in any war during this century?

Not sure if this is sarcasm, but quite a few on here from 'Operation Iraqi Freedom'

https://cms.qz.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/oifnames-of-fa...

well alright, I stand corrected

still tho, senators' and millionaires' sons aren't the E-rank grunts driving the trucks

No they’re the young platoon leaders putting themselves in harm’s way.

The reference was to "Fortunate Son".[0]

[0] https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/john-fogerty-a...

An odd reference as we don’t have a draft anymore.

Agreed, but not just because there is no longer a draft, but that the song referenced does not differentiate between the rank of those who serve. It does distinguish between those who serve and those who send them into harms way with no risk to themselves.

why go back in time, just be a russian general...