Let;s hear it for ignorance!

[gridlore]

From an article on aggressive tactics my military recruiters.

Nancy Carroll didn't know schools were giving military recruiters her family's contact information until a recruiter called her 17-year-old granddaughter.

That didn't sit well with Carroll, who believes recruiters unfairly target minority students. So she joined activists across the country who are urging families to notify schools that they don't want their children's contact information given out.

"People of color who go into the military are put on the front line," said the 67-year-old Carroll, who is black.

Bollocks. The majority of people in Army combat units are white. Minorities tend to join for job skill training and college opportunities, whites more for the adventure and experience. I state this as a former infantryman. Every infantry unit I was in had more white guys than other races. But our support units looked like the bloody UN.

So yes, decry the overly aggressive recruiters who are crossing far too many lines in trying to fill the ranks, but don't play the damn race card when it isn't warranted.

Comments

[jilesa.livejournal.com]

Do you think it's not true that recruiters are targeting economically depressed areas because students with less opportunity to go to college will be more likely to find the military attractive? I've seen enough evidence to support the notion that recruiting is concentrated more in economically depressed areas than otherwise. Given that 'economically depressed' in this country often equates to 'minority population', I don't think it's a long stretch to get to the idea that the military targets minorities for recruitment. I personally think the real determining factor is class rather than race (e.g. I suspect that upper class black kids are less likely to be recruited aggressively than lower class white kids), but given the strong correlation between class and race in this country, I can see why people would focus on the race issue.

[gridlore.livejournal.com]

Of course recruiters will look for people who are more likely to join the mulitary out of need. They're easier to convince.

But my point was this woman's contention that blacks will be used as canon fodder. First of all, infantry are not cannon fodder. We stopped that after the Civil War. Being an infantryman is one of the harder jobs in the modern army. And demographically, we're more white and Southern than anything else.

Add in the fact that she's talking about her granddaughter, who would be barred from direct combat roles anyway. Yes, military women are right there in the middle of things (waves at soldiergrrrl) but that is usually because they chose a MOS that puts them there. If this granddaughter chose a MOS like Finace Corps clerk, her odds of getting shot at go way down.

[jilesa.livejournal.com]

Ah, okay. Your initial post sounded like you were contesting the notion that race was a factor in recruitment at all, and that's what I was wondering about.

I see your point that what the military classifies as direct combat roles may be filled primarily by white men. However, as a civilian I probably have a different definition of 'front line' than a military person does. To me, and I suspect to many civilians, if it involves getting shot at or having bombs blow up in close proximity to a person's workplace, it's a 'front line' position. Given what we're hearing about conditions on the ground in Iraq, I'm not sure there's any position over there that isn't a 'front line' position, whatever the military calls it. So in that respect, I can understand this woman's point of view and certainly sympathize with it, even as I recognize that her statement is not technically correct from a military perspective.

I would be interested to see a racial analysis of the casualties from Iraq to see if there are racial disparities in the death tolls over there. That, more than anything, should indicate whether or not racial minorities are disproportionately in positions of danger, as this woman claims.

[soldiergrrrl.livejournal.com]

To me, and I suspect to many civilians, if it involves getting shot at or having bombs blow up in close proximity to a person's workplace, it's a 'front line' position. Given what we're hearing about conditions on the ground in Iraq, I'm not sure there's any position over there that isn't a 'front line' position, whatever the military calls it. So in that respect, I can understand this woman's point of view and certainly sympathize with it, even as I recognize that her statement is not technically correct from a military perspective.

Not to be rude, but your perception is wrong, and so is everyone else who thinks that.

A finance clerk on Liberty (where I am) will hear the mortars and the rockets as they come in. If they're unlucky, the rocket or mortar will land in the PX plaza or maybe by the building/tent the clerk works in.

Combat Arms units, like Infantry, Combat Engineers and tankers will, day after day, go out into the city to be blown up, shot at and otherwise fucked with. Luckily, because of my job, I sometimes get to go with them.

I would be interested to see a racial analysis of the casualties from Iraq to see if there are racial disparities in the death tolls over there. That, more than anything, should indicate whether or not racial minorities are disproportionately in positions of danger, as this woman claims.

I'm sure it's out there somewhere, even a quick scan of the phots shows a mix of races and ages.

[jilesa.livejournal.com]

I'm sure it's out there somewhere, even a quick scan of the phots shows a mix of races and ages.

And if there's a mix of races and ages in the photos, yet nearly all of the direct combat troops are white, what does that say about conditions over there?

I realize that question may sound challenging or sarcastic, which isn't my intent, but I can't find a better way to phrase the question. I'm genuinely curious. I know that there are degrees of danger over there, but it sounds like the combat lines are not clearly defined. If support troops are being killed in significant numbers, as it seems that they are from the reports I've seen, then why should we *not* consider them to be 'on the front lines' too? It seems to me that if someone gets caught by an IED or gets hit by mortar fire, then whatever position they were in *became* a 'front lines' position when the bomb went off. That may not be a militarily correct perception, but I'd be willing to bet that it's one a lot of civilians share.

Let me see if I can explain this better...

[soldiergrrrl.livejournal.com]

And if there's a mix of races and ages in the photos, yet nearly all of the direct combat troops are white, what does that say about conditions over there?

That support units are being attacked while out out on convoy. However, the support units that are being attacked are primarily drivers and MPs.

As a former truck driver, I can tell you that it's not only one of the most demanding jobs over here, it's also the most dangerous. Oh well. You're not being hit because you're support, per se, more because you're out there more often. It's just like people who drive a lot in the real world. The more time you spend on the road, the more likely you are to have an accident. If you don't drive, then you're probably not in much danger of being rear-ended.

The battle squads that escort folx come from a headquarters unit, so they're support, but they're still not, in any way, shape or form, taking the same risks that combat arms troops do.

I realize that question may sound challenging or sarcastic, which isn't my intent, but I can't find a better way to phrase the question. I'm genuinely curious. I know that there are degrees of danger over there, but it sounds like the combat lines are not clearly defined.

The front lines don't, no matter how you slice it, include the camps. Yes, you may get fucked up if you're out on convoy, but most of the support units aren't going out on the roads.

If support troops are being killed in significant numbers, as it seems that they are from the reports I've seen, then why should we *not* consider them to be 'on the front lines' too?

It seems to me that if someone gets caught by an IED or gets hit by mortar fire, then whatever position they were in *became* a 'front lines' position when the bomb went off. That may not be a militarily correct perception, but I'd be willing to bet that it's one a lot of civilians share.

Y'all can share it all you want. That doesn't make it correct, militarily or otherwise. Just because I've been IED'd or shot at, doesn't mean that I've been on the front lines.

(If it had happened while on patrol with the Infantry, I'd probably consider that "front line" stuff, but other than that, it's just what happens over here.)

Indirect fire is totally different from "front line" combat. Combat, at least to me, indicates combatants. Some chickenshit who lobs mortars over the camp boundaries is totally different that then guys who hit our soldiers in an ambush after an IED attack.

(Yes, Doug, I know. They're legitimate tactics. They still, and probably always will, piss me off.)

From www.govexec.com (I don't know the bias of this website, so I apologize.) The writer of this piece is associated with www.nationaljournal.com.

It is wrong to say that minorities are disproportionately bearing the burden. Whites are indeed slightly under-represented in today's active-duty military as a whole: They make up 64.2 percent of the force, compared with 69.1 percent of the U.S. population. (The reserve components are somewhat whiter.) But whites are slightly over-represented among the dead, at 70.9 percent.

Conversely, African-Americans are notably over-represented in the military as a whole. They make up 19.1 percent of the active-duty force, and a staggering 24 percent of the Army, as opposed to just 12.1 percent of the population. But blacks are not significantly over-represented among the dead of this global war: They make up only 12.4 percent.

The reason for this discrepancy, say experts, is that although blacks sign up in greater numbers, they cluster pragmatically in noncombat units whose training in mechanics, electronics, and logistics translates well into civilian careers upon leaving uniform. "The proportion of blacks to whites is very much smaller in the combat arms than in other branches," said retired Maj. Gen. Robert Scales, former commandant of the Army War College and a noted author. He added that Special Forces and aviation units have the smallest percentage of minorities of all segments of the military.

You can find the article at: http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0504/052804nj1.htm

This was also as of May 2004, but I don't have a lot of time at the moment.

Re: Let me see if I can explain this better...

[jilesa.livejournal.com]

I understand your point. All I'm saying is that when I hear of a soldier's death, I don't think, "Oh, zie wasn't in a direct combat unit, so zie didn't die on the front lines." I understand the distinctions you're making, but I also think those distinctions are largely lost on the civilian population when we're hearing the casualty reports.

Yea, but look at her age

[capplor.livejournal.com]

She was worried about her boyfriends during Vietnam. You did not serve in a draft-era military. I think she's probably expressing accurately how things were at that time. So this lady hasn't considered how perhaps looking for volunteers might change the population AND the job assignments from when all men were subject to the draft, and the impovrished (read "black" if you like) didn't have the resources to scheme for non-combat assignments.

I should add that now that there IS a war going on, I don't know that your or my experience necesarilly represents the way things are, either. Maybe we should both ask SoldierGrrl (or however it's spelled).

Re: Yea, but look at her age

[soldiergrrrl.livejournal.com]

Honestly, there's a huge mix of people in the military. The combat arms units that I've been around were primarily white guys from the South, but that's probably a bit skewed.

You're going to find more lower-class folx in jobs that require a lower GT score, only because of the schooling, I guess.

My unit, which is a public affairs outfit from Austin, Texas is almost completely white. We've got, out of 20 people, two Latinas and one Phillipino. The rest of us are as white as it gets. And journalists are in the shit pretty regularly, too.

My transpo unit was the opposite, though. We had a lot of blacks and a few Latinos.

I'm not sure how the demographics actually break down. My darling sappersgt might be able to better break it down for you, since he's CA.

Re: Yea, but look at her age

[chaotic-nipple.livejournal.com]

My MI unit is mostly white, the Cav Troop my team is currently attached to seems to have about the same proportion of minorities as the general population does, as did the Artillery battery we were with in OIF 1. The MEchanized Infantry unit we were with for NTC a few years ago was almost entirely white.

Re: Yea, but look at her age

[jeffreyab.livejournal.com]

Even during Vietnam minorities were not over represented in the combat arms because they did tend to opt for technical jobs over combat jobs.

[chaotic-nipple.livejournal.com]

Hey, doncha know America in general is EEEEVIL and racist and sexist and stomps on kittens for fun, and that the military is even worse? Weren't you paying attention to the orientation briefing for the Great Liberal Conspiracy? ;-)

[hartt-tommel.livejournal.com]

Most of the Combat Arms guys are white. There are blacks in there (hell, there's even one or two Irish/Viet/German mongrels in there), but the great ultra-lefty myth that minorities are used as "canon fodder" is a load of shite.*

-Tom

*It does provide for a funny moment in the South Park movie though.

[sinboy.livejournal.com]

They were in the past. In medical experiments that ended up denying people infected with syphilis a known cure. The Tuskegee 'experiments' lasted over 40 years, and had the collaboration of the office of the Surgeon General.

Things are different today, but if the woman being quoted was 67 years old, she might have good reason to mistrust the US government.

[gridlore.livejournal.com]

The Surgeon General is a civilian post.

As for Tuskegee.. i prefer to remember the Airmen who trained there and became one of the most storied units of WWII.

[sinboy.livejournal.com]

Oops. I didn't realize I was implying that the Surgeon General was military. I just mentioned it because it was a federal post, appointed by the president, not for any military reason.

I prefer to remember both groups from Tuskegee. I think keeping both of them mentioned gives a good sense that, despite being segregated and discriminated against, the airmen showed courage and patriotism. They were the better Americans than the people experimenting on other black citizens

[drewkitty.livejournal.com]

If anything, I would expect a racist Army Personnel to keep minorities OUT of combat units, to avoid teaching them combat skills that would be a problem in a potential revolt or revolution. The anecdotal evidence shared above is interesting in that respect.

The Russian military spent enormous amounts of effort on racially mixing its combat units to prevent the possibility of nationalist units revolting. However, the important stuff (i.e. Strategic Forces, officer corps, etc) was almost 100% ethnic Russian.

[soldiergrrrl.livejournal.com]

Do you smoke crack on a daily basis or is this new for you?

When you're enlisting, you pick your job based on your GT score.

Besides, every Soldier out there gets training with M-16/M-4, and basic combat stuff. No, it's not the hgh-speed shit the Infantry learns, and God knows we could use it, but it is basic combat skills.

Honestly, most support MOSs don't have the money or the time to learn the Infantryman's job. That's a full time thang right there.

[drewkitty.livejournal.com]

So much for being clear. I was thinking of a "hypothetically racist" Army personnel classification system. I don't think that they are racist by any means. They have a mission to achieve and that would get in the way.

However, since you mention it, haven't you noticed that the GT scoring system is just as culturally biased as the SATs and other standardized tests? I will point out that its administration is slightly more fair, however. Also, who do you think sets the GT requirements for each MOS?

Again, to be painfully clear, the Army doesn't care what color a soldier is. This has been a very positive force for change in American society.

That doesn't mean that other national militaries (and certain American big city police agencies) don't play games with race and recruitment.

There are three basic infantry techniques taught by the U.S. special forces: the basic stuff they teach to partisans who might change sides next week, the good stuff we teach to our allies, and the really cool stuff that is strictly kept in house. I wouldn't imagine that we'd teach the latter in Basic to support troops.

For the record, the only crack I smoke is biological, not chemical in nature. Your snarkiness is fine by me, however.

[soldiergrrrl.livejournal.com]

So much for being clear. I was thinking of a "hypothetically racist" Army personnel classification system. I don't think that they are racist by any means. They have a mission to achieve and that would get in the way.

However, since you mention it, haven't you noticed that the GT scoring system is just as culturally biased as the SATs and other standardized tests? I will point out that its administration is slightly more fair, however. Also, who do you think sets the GT requirements for each MOS?

I don't know. You could probably argue that it's gender-skewed too, since it has a lot of mechanicals on it, but what would you suggest?

There are some technically intensive jobs that need certain skill sets. I didn't go into commo because despite my GT score I knew that I'd struggle mightily.

If/when I apply for flight school I will have to study my butt off for spatials because it's not something that I'm used to dealing with.

Again, to be painfully clear, the Army doesn't care what color a soldier is. This has been a very positive force for change in American society.

That doesn't mean that other national militaries (and certain American big city police agencies) don't play games with race and recruitment.

I'm not in another nation's military and the only games I'm aware of by police departments is the push to recruit minority officers to patrol that ethnic neighborhood.

There are three basic infantry techniques taught by the U.S. special forces: the basic stuff they teach to partisans who might change sides next week, the good stuff we teach to our allies, and the really cool stuff that is strictly kept in house. I wouldn't imagine that we'd teach the latter in Basic to support troops.

No, and there's no reason to. It's time intensive, and requires motivation that most troops don't have. Not to mention it would be wasted training because most support/non-CA troops haven't the time or inclination to keep those skills sharp.

For the record, the only crack I smoke is biological, not chemical in nature. Your snarkiness is fine by me, however.

Well, I'm glad.

[sinboy.livejournal.com]

One thing is for sure, if we go back to the draft, it'll be the poor who're unable to get out of it.

[chaotic-nipple.livejournal.com]

There's a way to fix that: Write it into law that the children of congresscritters and highly paid bureaucrats are the first ones drafted, the the children of rich civilians, then the children of the middle class, THEN the poor. THat's the only form of draft I will ever accept. If they declare a draft before I get un-stoplossed, then I'm going to declare myself a conscientous objector the moment we get off the plane in Savannah. It won't make much difference in the grand scheme of things, but every little gesture counts.

[tsjafo.livejournal.com]

The occasionally drafted rich kids in the 60's, too, but those generally got assignments at the officer's club in Fraulienbump, Germany. It was the poor kids that usually got sent to Noncomphrag, Vietnam. Not everyone with money is an asshole, but few with money volunteer for the crappy jobs, and why should they? People with power have always been able to pull strings and get their kids out of the fire, and that won't ever change. Even with universal conscript, someone will find some reason to have the son of Congressmen Skruemupthebum assigned to the pentagon as a cocktail commando, while Joe Bagadonut's kid gets used for medical experiments or assigned as a biological mine clearing device. I can't speak in absolutes, just my experience, and my experience is who you know has a lot to do with where you end up. YMMV

[chaotic-nipple.livejournal.com]

I know that the politically powerful will still find ways to protect their spawn, at least this way it will be technically illegal for them to do so. Not like they don't break the law all the time, but still.

[biomekanic.livejournal.com]

Personally, I think we should make Ba'al worship (http://www.bensozia.com/benideas/baal.html) mandatory for members of Congress.

It doesn't take political connections...

[murbin.livejournal.com]

...the military is system, and like any other has it's angles.
A good friend of mine was assigned to the 82nd during the late 80's. He was an E4 or E5 by the time and knew the three magic words to say while reporting for duty.

"I can type."

This resulted in an immediate assignment to the HQ Company, where Bill was then filling out forms in triplicate all day.

Bill's family political or military connections: Zip.

[aurictech.livejournal.com]

As someone with 21 years service so far, the only draft I want to see in this country is draft beer. And not the cheap stuff, either....

The other sure thing...

[murbin.livejournal.com]

Nobody on the right side of the aisle, or anybody in the Pentagon is calling for or even asking for a draft.

The last I heard of anybody talking about reinstating a draft in Congress, it was Rep. Rangel, democrat from New York.

Re: The other sure thing...

[sinboy.livejournal.com]

No one who'd suffer from it politicaly is talking about it, but there are some seriously respected military analysts who're saying it may end up being a reality if we keep up our current deployment with the loss in new recruits we've been seeing.

We're not up for another major push into, say, Syria or Iran, non-US troops in Iraq are not a sure bet, and we're down in recruitment. About 40% this year.

We may never see a Viet Nam style draft, but if we keep expanding our military mission and reducing troop numbers, *something* has to give. Either we leave the places we're occupying, so an even worse job than we're doing now, hire mercenaries, or draft civillians.

No matter how hard Bush keeps chanting that victory is near, the Iraqi forces are not up to defending Iraq from much. Acording to US soldiers who work with them, the Iraqis keep running away. The insurgency isn't anywhere near defeated either.

Both of those problems mean we need more US troops out there, and we're not getting a huge rush of patriots clammoring to enlist.

Re: The other sure thing...

[murbin.livejournal.com]

One way to avoid the draft that liberal congressmen are calling for is to pull US troops out of Serbia, Bosnia and Kosovo. They have been there for well over six years, with no exit plan.