Saying that it "perpetuates a subtle myth," a senior Pentagon official has responded to an AP story that appeared earlier this week, attracting considerable national coverage, regarding the drop in military enlistment by African-Americans. In comments to this NewsBuster, Bill Carr, the Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Military Personnel Policy [photo], said that "the AP left readers with an impression that something sinister was emerging, but one must by unusually cynical to miss the real story."The AP story reported that the number of blacks joining the military "has plunged by more than one-third since the Afghanistan and Iraq wars began. Other job prospects are soaring and relatives of potential recruits increasingly are discouraging them from joining the armed services."
The story describes a Sean Glover in Washington, D.C., who "said he has done all he can to talk black relatives out of joining the military," quoting Glover to this effect:
"I don't think it's a good time. I don't support the government's efforts here and abroad. There's other ways you can pay for college. There's other ways you can get your life together. Joining the Army, the military, comes at a very high price."Said Carr: "this perpetuates a subtle myth that minorities suffer death or injury disproportionately. The opposite is true as a function of voluntary career selections -- choices that we celebrate. In fact, African-Americans continue to advantage their futures through valuable job training in fields such as medical or dental technician."
Story Continues Below Ad ↓
Continued Carr: "While the propensity of adults to recommend military service to young people has fallen, African-American influencers remain the least inclined to support military service, owing to factors like Mr. Glover's misimpressions that joining "comes at a very high price." Sacrifice is a hallmark of military service, but the ultimate sacrifice is not borne disproportionately by minorities. Blacks are about 18 percent of the active duty force (officer and enlisted), but represent 10 percent of those killed and roughly 8 percent of the wounded. Whites comprise 70 percent of the active duty force but about three-quarters of those killed or wounded.
"The disparity is attributable to an understandable interest of minority youth in acquiring valuable job skills. Blacks comprise 19 percent of the enlisted force, but 12 percent of the combat arms and twice that proportion -- 24 percent -- in health care fields (blacks are one third of the Admin and Support specialties). Minorities appear to favor high-value job training in preparing for life, rather than the promise of education benefits that are more typical incentives for placement in the combat arms. We celebrate these choices by young people in deciding what best suits their preferences and career plans. In a volunteer military, the volunteers choose their skills."
Concluded Carr: "African-American . . . representation among recruits increasingly is falling in line with the demographics of society -- this is not an unhealthy development in America, as its military continuously seeks to reflect the society it protects. Today's volunteer military increasingly is representative of national demographics, by way of training in skills that support longer-term career plans. All of this is consistent with the objectives established by the nation when it ended conscription and substituted personal choice in forming the most powerful military on earth."
Contact Mark at mark@gunhill.net
—Mark Finkelstein is a NewsBusters contributing editor and host of Right Angle. Contact him at mark@gunhill.net.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
"Joining the Army, the m
June 29, 2007 - 06:50 ET by rimsky"Joining the Army, the military, comes at a very high price."
Freedom.. funny thing.. it never has been on sale.
No, No, No, Mark.This guy has
June 29, 2007 - 07:16 ET by LeonNo, No, No, Mark.
This guy has got it all wrong. It's not minorities that suffer from a higher casualty rate.
It's poor people. Which is tends to be what happens in an all-volunteer army.
Wrong. The military draws p
June 29, 2007 - 07:19 ET by Mark FinkelsteinWrong. The military draws proportionately from all socio-economic classes of American society, with one exception: the poorest segment of society is significantly under-represented in the military.
That's interesting because ev
June 29, 2007 - 07:23 ET by LeonThat's interesting because everything I've read says that the military reflects the working class. I'll try to find some info, but in the meantime, since you seem so sure of what you wrote, you must have easy access to demographic data. If this is the case and you don't have to go digging around the internet could you post your data?
Forget this post. I just sa
June 29, 2007 - 07:24 ET by LeonForget this post. I just saw your link below. I'll read it.
As someone closer to the tip
June 30, 2007 - 12:06 ET by BDAs someone closer to the tip of the spear, I can tell you that several demographics are OVERrepresented in the US military. They are:
1.) Children of career military members.
2.) Conservatives.
3.) Middle class white males.
4.) People from "Red America"
There are several groups who demographically are UNDER represented in the US miltiary.
1.) The Poor.
2.) Liberals
3.) East Coast/West Coast residents.
4.) Denizens of major metropolitan areas.
5.) Children of the press.
Leon: read this.
June 29, 2007 - 07:22 ET by Mark FinkelsteinLeon: read this.
Thanks for the link, Mark.
June 29, 2007 - 07:48 ET by GalvanicThanks for the link, Mark. Rangel has been one of the worst perpetuators of the myth since the war in Iraq began, and the rank-and-file bobble-headed libs just nod in agreement without checking the facts.
There is nothing wrong with the all-volunteer force. It is manned by some of the most capable Americans one can find anywhere. Ask any military commander if he/she would like a return to the draft, and they will tell you 'No,' because the high standards and demands of the contemporary force require dedicated folks who want to be there; commanders don't have the time or resources to deal with a bunch of people who don't want to be there.
Rangel and his ilk think that if you draft a few rich kids into the Army, the Congress won't be so quick to go to war. But they never consider what's best for our Armed Forces; in other words, national security and the lives of our service members take a backseat to the political games of the Left.
The challenge for the all-volunteer force is how it fights a long term war like Iraq/Afghanistan, and not who fights it. How long can any force sustain the commitment?
Mark,That's a good article ab
June 29, 2007 - 13:19 ET by LeonMark,
That's a good article about recruting for 2 specifc years, but it doesn't really adress the overall composition of the military.
Do you know anywhere that I could find information on the socioeconomic makeup of the entire American military?
Yoda, er...Leon, you said t
June 29, 2007 - 13:23 ET by MightyMouthYoda, er...Leon, you said this:
"No, No, No, Mark.
This guy has got it all wrong. It's not minorities that suffer from a higher casualty rate.
It's poor people. Which is tends to be what happens in an all-volunteer army."
Mark proved you WRONG, now you want him to go out and try to make your case for you? Something you can't do for yourself?
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
MM,Still trying so hard to 'g
June 29, 2007 - 13:28 ET by LeonMM,
Still trying so hard to 'get' me. It's hasn't worked before and it's not working now.
1) He didn't prove me wrong. Did you even read the link? It merely showed a few stats for 2 years of Army recruiting. So what? Furthermore, they only show actual stats for blacks and highschool education. Where's the socioeconomic information? Missing.
2) I didn't tell Mark to go out and make a case for me. I was asking him if he knew where I could look. Figured he might know these things working for the Media Research Council and all. You need to learn how to interpret letters that appear on your screen. When put together they form words. It's called reading, don't be ashamed, many adults in America can't read.
MM, it would probably be best for you if you stopped trying to nitpick me. You're never right and you just look silly/petty. I know you enjoy your role as the Newsbusters court jester, but why don't you just leave me out of it.
What information do you want?
June 30, 2007 - 12:08 ET by BDWhat information do you want?
I have already told you that demographically your assertion that the poor are OVER represented is incorrect. Moskos from Illinois has proven for many years that the Middle Class is over represented not the poor.
Some posters are only interested in information that proves
June 30, 2007 - 13:18 ET by RJWell, you already know, BD, that some posters are only interested in information that proves them right....and some posters are too lazy to do their own homework.
However, here's another site on the subject...the first (surprise!) that comes up under a search of "socioeconomic makeup of military"
http://www.tompaine.com/articles/military_misconceptions.php
"...the most recent Department of Defense population study paints an ethnic picture of new recruits and officers that looks fairly similar to the civilian population."
Leon, let's imagine you're
June 29, 2007 - 13:45 ET by The Wicked ConservativeLeon, let's imagine you're correct and the poor make up the largest demographic in the armed services. So flippin what? Good for them. They can be afforded better opportunities than they ever could have before. When are we going to stop begrudging successful people in America. Isn't that why you work, to get ahead, to make a better life for you and your kids some day? So what if Paris Hilton is a waste of human flesh, it's her right. And what exactly would you like to see happen here?
You can't save the Earth unless You're willing to make other people sacrifice.
Dogbert the Green Consultant summing up the elite left.
So Kennedies, Hiltons and R
June 29, 2007 - 07:25 ET by sarcasmoSo Kennedies, Hiltons and Rockefellers should be drafted, or left-alone and allowed to be born-rich in peace? Here's a fact of life nobody seems to want to admit in the USA. Poverty exists, and it sucks. Big government has a poor record, in times of peace or of war, of doing anything useful about that fact.
JMR
Is sarcasmo the libertarian
June 29, 2007 - 07:28 ET by Mark FinkelsteinIs sarcasmo the libertarian implying that government should play an active role in addressing poverty? How do you define poverty, by the way? The average "poor" person in the USA has material wealth that would be the envy of billions in the world.
No, I'm only saying they're
June 29, 2007 - 07:40 ET by sarcasmoNo, I'm only saying they're crappy at it every time they try to "help." And I've been to various foreign countries, that's why I'm excited about this project, even though it won't do too much to get Paul Wolfowitz laid, I suspect it might actually help poor people to house themselves cheaply. Naturally, the news media's not noticing our efforts, which are so-far sporadic.
JMR
The shelter looks and sounds
June 29, 2007 - 08:26 ET by UphillThe shelter looks and sounds like a great idea. But which wall supports the big screen TV? That satellite dish has to hook up to something!
The problem with the Hexayu
June 29, 2007 - 08:42 ET by sarcasmoThe problem with the Hexayurt idea is that it might actually work to help the poor, and clearly -- as I've said -- that's a minor consideration compared to important public-policy stuff like getting banking bureaucrats laid at any cost. Anyway, such a project also inadvertently points-out what zoning actually does to the poor in "rich" nations. I'd like to build (or stay-in) much smaller and more spartan hotel rooms than are currently available, but bureaucrats who claim to be protecting the poor won't allow the "free" marketplace to furnish such hotel rooms.
JMR
I'll be honest and say the fi
June 29, 2007 - 08:53 ET by UphillI'll be honest and say the first time I read the link I was not thinking of the shelters being used for the poor but rather that they were to be used for persons that were misplaced due to natural disasters and such. Can you imagine how much we the taxpayers would have saved after Katrina had the government bought these types of shelters and not used them instead of all of those unused trailers?
Yep. Great minds. Tsunami,
June 29, 2007 - 09:01 ET by sarcasmoYep. Great minds. Tsunami, too. Read the Pentagon PDF -- typically, the US Marines seem to have been the only ones to currently "get it." I want to build one, for tape testing and as a second home for cheap in Panama.
JMR
Would you please explain &quo
June 29, 2007 - 09:13 ET by UphillWould you please explain "tape testing"?
3M makes a kind of "du
June 29, 2007 - 09:18 ET by sarcasmo3M makes a kind of "duct tape on steroids" which seems like it might, perhaps with a few modifications, be useful for this application. I've obtained a roll, but at the moment my funds for going to Panama are a bit short due to a lawyer-welfare program I'm financing. Anyway, I'm in the process of finding scraps and using Florida's sun (almost as hot as Panama's!) to test what happens. Ultimately, we'd probably want 3M to develop an aluminum-foil-faced version of the duct-tape, but it's already quite-good stuff. And 3M's distributors were very nice to us, and 3M's tape is the best quality tape in the world IMO.
JMR
This one really made me laugh
June 29, 2007 - 10:36 ET by BruzillaThis one really made me laugh!!! Katrina? Do you know why most of those trailers went unused? Because the first step in providing aid was to get the quickest shelter available, which was hotel rooms. And what happened when the trailers became available? Well... who wants to leave a nice, comfy, hotel room with all the ammenities (all paid for by Uncle Sam) for a crummy old trailer? And what happened when Uncle Sam tried to force the folks out of the hotle rooms and into the trailers? Law suits. I can just imagine what the response would have been if they were told to leave their hotel rooms for one of these shelters.
Oh man, I can just imagine the press coverage now. We send in the National Guard to build hundreds of these nice little huts for the displaced from Katrina. And there's Jessie Jackson, Al Sharpton, Mayor Nagin, Hillary Clinton, and all the other of their ilk, standing before the cameras and pointing out to the shelters, while they blast the evil Republicans for trying to force New Orleans's Black population into a Third World living environment, pointing out how George Bush treats "X" (with "X" being your choice of A: Guantanamo Bay detainees, B: Abu Gahrib prisioners, or C: Afghani refugees) better than he's treating hard-working Black Americans who lost their homes when the levies were bombed.
"Oh, the shame and indig
June 29, 2007 - 12:18 ET by Uphill"Oh, the shame and indignity" would be the cry of having to live (temporarily) in a silver hut (with a satellite dish!).
You really need to go actua
June 29, 2007 - 12:22 ET by sarcasmoYou really need to go actually-read the link. There's no need to use National Guardsmen to do what the victims of natural disasters themselves can do in a few hours. Hell, my friend Vinay in one of their videos does it singlehanded, even, on a stretch-hexayurt. And needless to say, I'm not too impressed by lawsuits as an argument against cheaper/better ideas, especially once we leave the first world and go to where most of the problems are. I want to quit funding bureaucrats' girlfriends with my taxes. Period. That argument, for me, trumps all others.
JMR
These projects are great at t
June 29, 2007 - 09:28 ET by BruzillaThese projects are great at taking care of the immediate need, but then what happens? Go back to Africa in the 1980s as thousands of men, women, and children lay starving from famine. You had a bunch of musicians and philanthropists raising millions of dollars to feed these people. The bought food, they got it delivered, they helped with the distribution, then they patted each other on the back for the great job they did and went back to living their lives. But what happened next?
Before all this effort, there were a bunch of starving people dying in the desert. Now they're fed, and getting healthier, so do you think they will be content? Of course not. Now they want more food, the want better shelter, they want jobs, they want better transportation, they want a vote, they want a pizza delivered in less than 30 minutes... but where are the musicians and philanthropists now? They're gone... moved onto bigger and better causes... so now the problem is dumped onto the same government that couldn't support even feeding these people.
So, we're going to build all these lovely little foil houses for people who have no place to live and are dropping like flies. What happens next? Well, now they need electricity, indoor plumbing, and smoke detectors. The comfortable accomodations and reduced stress on mom and dads lead to a spurt in the birth rate, so now we need bigger family units. Now we need come basic community centers, and schools, and playgrounds for the kids... after all, the "rich" people have all this! But where will all the supporters of this effort be when all this comes due? They'll be off giving each other awards for their life-changing efforts and will have no more time or money to put towards the effort. So the refugees, poor people, minorities, or whoever is living in these will start to rebel. The best and brightest will move out, and the leeches will stay behind, eventually trashing the whole operation.
I wish people who push these projects would realize that once you take on the problems of people who cannot fend for themselves, you are taking on their problems for the rest of their lives for the most part.
Here's where you're wrong.
June 29, 2007 - 09:37 ET by sarcasmoHere's where you're wrong. We're not giving away anything but good ideas. The food programs you mentioned -- by giving away food for free -- destroyed what little was left of agricultural capitalism in Africa every time post-famine, just as any economist worth his salt would have predicted. This project ain't that, because it's not something for nothing like the tax-funded stuff that gets Paul Wolfowitz laid. It's gonna work like what it's modeled-after (Linux and Wikipedia) despite pissing some people who don't want it to work off (like Linux & Wikipedia!) and that's my kind of project. If someone wants to finance giving away Hexayurts, that'll be great. The builders will be the occupants (see the page).
JMR
Great points, but here's wher
June 29, 2007 - 10:16 ET by BruzillaGreat points, but here's where you're wrong. It doesn't matter who pays for these houses or who builds them. The issue is that when you're dealing with human beings, their needs rarely remain static. You think you can give some poor person a nice aluminum hut and they'll be happy? No. All you've done is satisfied their immediate need for shelter. Once that need is met, someone is going to have to help them meet the next need, and the needs after that. If someone dies from exposure, they're dead. If you save someone from exposure, they now need food, jobs, education, lights, water, pizza, and on and on. It's gonna take a LOT more than a 12X12 piece of foil to provide all that... so where's it gonna come from?
I never said anything above
June 29, 2007 - 10:23 ET by sarcasmoI never said anything above about happiness. Only good ideas for shelter and relentless ridicule of Paul Wolfowitz and the World Bank's wastefulness. The poor will always be with us, I truly believe that, but a bunch of open-source geeks and I can do a better job at housing them, for almost-no money, than Paul Wolfowitz has done with my taxes by constantly trying to get his knob polished. That's the point. I do not promise any of the things you imagine I'm promising, I just say "we have better and cheaper ideas." That's the entire message, apart from making fun of Wolfowitz relentlessly...
JMR
I've always thought these wer
June 29, 2007 - 09:33 ET by HelenSI've always thought these were an incredible idea. Dirt domes. Many (most?) refugees live in very arid areas and something like this would use materials that are as ubiquitous as, well...dirt! They can be as simple as a one-room dome or as elaborate as you want to make them. Totally cool.
http://www.calearth.org/EcoDome.htm
"Cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war" - Shakespeare
Mayhap this was the better li
June 29, 2007 - 09:37 ET by HelenSMayhap this was the better link: http://www.calearth.org/emergshelter.htm
"Cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war" - Shakespeare
HelenS, I was thinking "what's wrong with adobe?"
June 29, 2007 - 10:02 ET by RJHelenS, I was thinking what's wrong with old fashioned, labor-intensive Adobe for those people, but this is MUCH better. High-tech isn't always the best solution.
I was watching Dirty Jobs las
June 29, 2007 - 10:22 ET by BruzillaI was watching Dirty Jobs last week, and they did a segment on building one of these houses. All you need is mud, sand, and straw, and a lot of elbow grease. I think these houses show that if someone really needs a house, just about anywhere in the World, they can make one if they have to. If they're too industrious or lazy, they die.
How in the World did our ancestors ever survive before there was a World Bank or Paul Wolfowitz spending money to build low-cost housing???
It sucks to be poor
June 29, 2007 - 12:33 ET by florida_chadExactly Mark. When I was in my mid 20's, I made an income that classified me as "poor." I lived in a 4 bedroom house with 3 other guys. The home was on Pensacola Beach. I had a car, computer, cable tv. I was 1 block from the gulf of mexico.
No matter what the economic system, there will always be poor people.
}}----> Sad chad
June 29, 2007 - 12:48 ET by Cool ArrowI remember similar times in my 20's. Sure did suck to be poor. I remember wondering where my next $50 bucks was coming from to drive to San Antonio to see Joe Cocker and party all night.
Tough times, all right. Neither one of us would go back to those days of squalor, would we?
chilly dart
June 29, 2007 - 12:57 ET by florida_chadToday: wife, kids, works, stresses
Then: fun, sun, work, drink, sleep (ok ok, pass out), - repeat
don't tempt me..................
Nah, chad
June 29, 2007 - 13:00 ET by Cool ArrowMe too neither.
Honey, I know you're reading over my shoulder.
lol
June 29, 2007 - 13:01 ET by florida_chadlol
"Big government has a po
June 29, 2007 - 07:33 ET by rimsky"Big government has a poor record, in times of peace or of war, of doing anything useful about that fact."
Sarc, that statement almost sounds like you are implying that the gubmint SHOULD do something about it. Careful dude, you don't want to sound like a republicrat.. or is that a democratican... I forget..
Sarcasmo:I do not want Drafte
June 30, 2007 - 12:11 ET by BDSarcasmo:
I do not want Draftees standing in the ranks beside me. Particularly ones as vapid as the Kennedies, Hiltons, Rockefellers, and Clintons.
Instead of drafting them, scorn should be heaped upon them.
Has anyone considered, that
June 29, 2007 - 09:20 ET by kafkakaeferHas anyone considered, that Carr wants to read that "subtle myth" into this story; without it being really there? I mean nowhere in the AP-article it is stated or even supposed that minorities suffer injury or death with a higher proportion than others in the army.
"Hegel says somewhere all great events and personalities in world history reappear in one fashion or another. He forgot to add: the first time as tragedy, the second as farce."
The Eighteeenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte (1852) sect. 1, Cf.
Actually the article proves t
June 29, 2007 - 09:52 ET by jdhawkActually the article proves the opposite - that it is white Americans that are taking the combat arms jobs and are dying in higher proportion than minorities. And, that minorities are taking the cushy jobs in the rear.
Now, let's see if Katie "the teleprompter reader" Couric will start her "news" program with that headline!
. . . don't hold your breath . . .
"No one here is black,
June 29, 2007 - 17:10 ET by alamojb"No one here is black, white, brown, or yellow. Everyone here is green." Rough paraphrase of what one of my Army Drill Sergeants said in Basic training in 1992. Of course, that was before the Army went to those speckled gray uniforms.
Today he might get in trouble for saying that.