does this help discredit the myth to anyone? http://www.usatoday.com/usatonline/20030121/4794964s.htm Front-line troops disproportionately white, not black Numbers refute long-held belief By Dave Moniz and Tom Squitieri USA TODAY WASHINGTON -- The American troops likeliest to fight and die in a war against Iraq are disproportionately white, not black, military statistics show -- contradicting a belief widely held since the early days of the Vietnam War. In a little-publicized trend, black recruits have gravitated toward non-combat jobs that provide marketable skills for post-military careers, while white soldiers are over-represented in front-line combat forces. The tilt toward white combat troops is recognized by many senior commanders and a small group of scholars who study the military. ''If anybody should be complaining about battlefield deaths, it is poor, rural whites,'' says Charles Moskos, a military sociologist at Northwestern University in Illinois. When Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., called recently for the return of a military draft, he evoked images of inequality raised during the early years of the Vietnam War, when black soldiers died at rates much greater than their share of the U.S. population. Though Rangel is right that blacks and lower-income Americans still serve in disproportionate numbers, that fact misses another significant trend. While blacks are 20% of the military -- compared with 12% of the U.S. population -- they make up a far smaller percentage of troops in combat jobs on the front line. In a host of high-risk slots -- from Army commandos to Navy and Air Force fighter pilots -- blacks constitute less than 5% of the force, statistics show. Blacks, especially in the enlisted ranks, tend to be disproportionately drawn to non-combat fields such as unit administration and communications. They are underrepresented in jobs shooting rifles or dropping bombs. Examples: * Of the Army's 45,586 enlisted combat infantryman, 10.6% are black. * Of the Air Force's 12,000 pilots, 245, or about 2%, are black. * In the Navy, 2.5% of the pilots are black. Senior Air Force officials say they are troubled by the number of black pilots and plan to do better. * The Army's enlisted Green Berets are among the least diverse groups in the military. Only 196 of the Army's 4,278 enlisted Green Berets -- fewer than 5% -- are black. The reasons for the racial divide are unclear, but several theories have emerged, including lingering racism in some quarters of the military and a tendency among black recruits to choose jobs that help them find work in the civilian sector.
I'm more interested in how it breaks down through class status. But asking that question might constitute class warfare.
i think that's fair game...but the assertion has been for a LONG time that minorities (blacks, in particular) are the ones disproportionately put in harm's way by the decisions of white policy makers -- which sounds even funnier now with Powell and Rice in place!
Yeah, but Powell has been protective of the troops since he actually went to war. The argument is that troops shouldn't be sent to war by pansies like Bush and Cheney and previously Clinton. Nevertheless, this is really interesting. The article highlights concerns w/ the Army and the Air Force where elite positions are underrepresented. Those same positions shouldn't be used in the article, imo, to argue that minorities aren't represented in the 'bullet catcher positions' that the rest of us intuit the socio-economically deprived flock towards (long sentence, blah).
Are you advocating an end to civilian control of the military? One problem I have with the whole "chicken-hawk" argument is that if previous military service should be some sort of prerequisite to advocate military action, doesn't it also hold true that military service should be a prerequisite to be against military action as well? Aren't there "chicken-doves" as well?
I agree with both sides to some extent, but I feel that input from individuals like Colin Powell, who has fought in every US war in the last 40 years, is discounted. It just unnerves me to have people that refused to serve when their country needed them like Bush, Cheney, Clinton and Gore. Then they push this patriotic image about defending the freedoms. And Clinton in all his glory stated that he would go and fight for Israel to keep it safe. I truly feel that some including myself do not truly understand the horror of war unless we have been there. It teaches you the true ramifications behind "executive" decisions.
That's a good point Buck, but chicken-doves at least run consistent to their beliefs. I actually found out that the Navy pays up to $175 K for med school loans, so it turns out that there are places for the intelligentsia/elitist chicken-doves and chicken-hawks to acknowledge their patriotism and do good deeds at the same time. Think of the immediate respect one conjures for a guy like Frist or a man like Powell or Clark, or McCain. Those are certainly the sort of people that we should honor in the highest office of the land. I'm babbling, (nervous b/c I need to run up for the next cup..asdjflksjasjf), but suffice it to say that I wholeheartedly agree w/ Rangel's amendment. We should all hand our asses to the govt (we are the govt btw) at some point.... kids in Utah can give their church 2 years of their lives, but the framework isn't there to demand it from the military. What gives?
Reading this, my guess is that whites from the South are overly represented in the "bullet-catcher" positions. This is interesting because less than a century ago, white southerners were very much against entry into WWI, even to the point where Wilson had to finesse some preparedness programs through congress. How times change. To me, the chickenhawk thing is not about whether someone served or didn't serve. It's about advocating a position with such certainty that alternatives are automatically rejected and cautions are not considered. Add to this an appearance that the political is driving the strategic (maybe even the tactical), and the opportunities for great error and tragedy are increased significantly. One need not have served to understand the idea of the "Fog of War," and it is unlikely that one who served would be blind to the concept. It's the folks that didn't serve and can't or won't grasp the subtler points, uncertainties, and vicissitudes of warfare that are the ones to worry about. And by the way, Gore served.
He wasn't walking point through rice paddies, but he was over there and was exposed to some danger at times. From my conversations with folks who were there (both front and rear echelon) there were no cakewalks. Anyone who was over there did more than "technically" serve. Furthermore, as a Senator's son, he could have easily found ways not to go at all (like Clinton, Bush, Cheney, etc.), but instead he chose to go.
He did choose to go.....or so he claims. It's not like we can say for sure whether he is lying or not. Kind of like that whole Internet thing...different spins can be applied during different climates......and of course, from different sides Nevertheless, here's a cnn report that was written to say nice things about Gore....but pretty much says he did have a cakewalk. Of course, he didn't want it to be a cakewalk......again, or so he claims. http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2000/democracy/gore/stories/gore/
<blockquote><hr>Originally posted by MadMax does this help discredit the myth to anyone? contradicting a belief widely held since the early days of the Vietnam War. <hr></blockquote> Well, more blacks did die in Vietnam on a proportional basis. That is not a myth. If 10.6% infantrymen out a 12% population is disproportionate as that article states, then it should be noted that 12.5% of the casualties in Vietnam were black, when the black population was 11.1% of the population in 1970.* The stats you show say a 2.4% difference in infantry today is "disproportionate" when a 2.4% difference existed in actual casualites occured in Vietnam. If one is disproportionate, then the other is, too. So, what myth are you trying to discredit. The article should say that Vietnam had a disproportionate number of black casualties, then say this has gone the other way, today. * -- stats are from the National Archive and US Census information for 1970.
You have to apply and go through a hellish selection process to be offered a position in the special forces and it's all voluntary. Infantry units are predominantly white and hispanic but african americans are strongly represented in the combat engineers and field artillery units.
