That analogy works a little better as some rural enclave in Alabama, where the local survivalists insist they saw black helicopters scouting for the jihadis.

Many of the main characters' choices were far from cut and dried, but so long as they made the "right" one they suffered few significantly bad consequences, and I still believe that denied them developmental opportunities more than the choices themselves did. The end of Perrins arc is a good example: Faced with a choice between defending Rand or rescuing Faile or Rand he finally makes the right for the right reasons, even at the cost of his wife. That could have been a great chance for him to learn the value of great personal sacrifice, deciding WHICH loss to suffer rather than WHETHER to suffer any, how to accept and cope with what he had to give up to do his duty, save the world and stay alive.

Yet in the end, though he NEARLY loses Faile, he plays the faithful sidekick AND gets the girl. No one dies except the unappreciated (but far more faithful) pony thrown in (apparently) for no reason but to be very appealing so readers get very attached and the authors can twist a knife in them with her vicious killing.