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.