Posted on 11/15/2005 1:54:56 PM PST by Diana in Wisconsin
Who Bears the Burden? Demographic Characteristics of U.S. Military Recruits Before and After 9/11
Center for Data Analysis Report #05-08
A few Members of Congress, motivated by American combat in the Middle East, have called for the reinstatement of a compulsory military draft. The case for coercing young citizens to join the military is supposedly based on social justice—that all should serve—and seems to be buttressed by reports of shortfalls in voluntary enlistment. In a New York Times op-ed on December 31, 2002, Representative Charles Rangel (D– NY) claimed, “A disproportionate number of the poor and members of minority groups make up the enlisted ranks of the military, while most privileged Americans are underrepresented or absent.”[1] This claim is frequently repeated by critics of the war in Iraq.[2] Aside from the logical fallacy that a draft is less offensive to justice than a voluntary policy, Rangel’s assertions about the demographic makeup of the enlisted military are not grounded in fact.
Although all branches of the armed services have been able to meet recruiting goals in recent years, the Army’s difficulty in meeting its goal of 80,000 new soldiers in 2005 has been widely reported, and some view it as a symbol of the need to reinstate the draft. However, this shortfall should be placed in the proper context. The Army is projected to fall just 7,000 (about 9 percent) short of its 2005 recruitment goal, which is less than 1 percent of the overall military of over 1 million personnel. Furthermore, there is the unexpected rise in re-enlistment rates. In other words, the total force strength is about what it should be.
Since the draft was discontinued in 1973, all branches of the U.S. military have relied entirely on volunteers to fill their ranks. There are constant challenges in maintaining a balanced supply of recruits for force strength and composition, but three decades of experience confirms that the voluntary policy works well, despite widespread skepticism in the early 1970s. The same cannot be said of a conscripted force, as evidenced by the backlash among troops and the public during the Vietnam conflict. Despite the Pentagon’s strong preference for an all-volunteer force, some politicians and many voters favor a draft.
A June 2005 Associate Press/Ipsos poll found that 27 percent of respondents supported “the reinstatement of the military draft in the United States.” Reinstatement of the draft was far more popular immediately following the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, when 76 percent of Americans supported a renewed draft if “it becomes clear that more soldiers are needed in the war against terrorism.”[3]
Although Representative Rangel’s bill to reinstate the draft failed by a decisive vote of 402–2 in the House of Representatives in 2004, the issue will likely be considered again, especially if there are more terrorist attacks on the U.S.
Some motivations for the draft are entirely patriotic in the sense that they aim to protect America from aggressors. Others see the draft as an instrument of equality, as well as an instrument of pacifism.
Representative Rangel’s theory is that if all citizens faced equal prospects of dying in a conflict, support for that conflict would have to pass a higher standard. This theory assumes that the privileged classes would be less willing to commit the nation to war if that conflict involved personal, familial, or class bloodshed. It also assumes that the existing volunteers are either ignorant or lack other options—that is, they are involuntary participants. One way to test this thesis is to explore the demographic patterns of enlisted recruits before and after the initiation of the global war on terrorism on September 11, 2001.
No matter what the politics, if anybody is going to benefit from the freedoms afforded to them by our military, they should serve the country in some capacity. I doesn't have to be in the military. Everybody should have to give something back. Never mind just paying taxes and being a good citizen. Freedom is not free and everybody should participate in the machinery and methods that allow us to have those freedoms.
I remember how resentful I was when I came back from Vietnam and went to get my first regular job. I saw some friends of mine who had already been at their jobs at least 5 years and were way ahead in their careers while I was just beginning mine. I had gone to war and they were reaping the benefits of the freedoms that I and my fellow Marines and soldiers has afforded them. I felt that those people who had not served were receiving a very unfair advantage in their careers. I eventually caught up, but as far as I'm concerned, it was still unfair.
I would serve my country again if called upon to do so. But, let's make sure the system is fair to everydoby, rich and poor, black, white, hispanic, religious or non-religious, whatever.
My two older children, both in the top 5% of their graduating classes (2003 and 2005), and both of whom received academic stipends to Top-50 colleges, were agressively pursued by military recruiters - specifically, we were told, BECAUSE they are top 5%.
1. Soft issue, I rarely see American flags on Asian-american cars.
2. All Asian-american parents appear to want their kids to be doctors and lawyers, and steer them away from the military - Well, they appear to be suceeding!
3. They don't appear to have a "Buy American" consciousness. I know it's easy to be down on Detroit right now, but I see them drive disproportionately non-American cars.
4. OK, this is a pet peeve of mine, but I don't personally know any Asian Rush Limbaugh fans (besides my wife). I'm excepting Michelle Malkin of course, who I don't know personally.
Maybe I'm just down on China/Chinese Americans but I think the Indian-Amercians will be first to break this pattern. I saw an article via an enthusiastic Indian press about an Indian-american fighting in Iraq.
Can anyone else out there corroborate my impressions? Anyone out there care to disagree?
To suggest they only serve because they can't find a job is to denigrate each one of those patriots.
You hit the nail right on the head.
That coincides with the percentage of Americans who describe themselves as liberals. The all-volunteer force hurts their anti-war efforts.
When, if, that happens, Rangel will be nowhere to be found. Or he'll say its happening 'cause the Republicans did it wrong.
The only thing that has changed is that the military is much more aggressively discouraging HS dropouts. Though I do know that if an area has a lower graduation percentage, the recruiters will help recruits get GEDs. The article notes that 98% of recruits have a HS diploma or GED compared to 75% of the civilian population.
This is a good article. It essentially dispels the myths that people join the military because they are stupid or poor. Not that that will stop the liberals from continuing to look down on the military. But at least conservatives can know that the people representing us were better than the average man or woman *before* they even put on the uniform.
"Also, the oft-told tale of young criminals being offered the choice of jail or military service is also bullsqueeze. The military rarely takes anyone with a criminal record"
Yes they do!!!!!
This is much like the myths of the Vietnam War.
2/3 of those who served in Vietnam were volunteers.
86% of those killed were white,and 12.5% were black.
79% had a high school education or better.
Drug use in the military was no higher than in the general population.
And 91% said they would serve again.
These are just a few statistics from that period.
That is why new people are not enlisting as much and I don't blame them. Wish a recruiter would call my house!!
Some recruiters do whatever it takes to get people in. Criminals were with me in basic, in ait, and at my 1st duty station.
And, as I recall, old Charlie voted against his own bill.
I'm sure he didn't want that used against him during the election last year.
Do part of your feelings of "unfairness" stem from being drafted, versus volunteering to serve? Just curious. I'm retired Army. Volunteered in 1978, but was mobilized for Operation Desert Shield/Storm from '90-'92.
I'd do it again in a heartbeat.
In my own personnal survey.......all the young men I know come from good homes with parents who are teachers, engineers, police........middle class in other words.
"Can anyone else out there corroborate my impressions? Anyone out there care to disagree?"
I was in the Army from '78 to '98. I remember very few Asians serving with me. The only one that springs to mind is CPT Omata, but he was born here and was second-generation Chinese.
Now that you mention it, I don't remember a single Asian female serving with me in all that time! It was mostly Blacks and Whites and a smattering of Hispanics, now that I think about it. The males were pretty evenly divided between Black, White and Hispanic.
"Some recruiters do whatever it takes to get people in. Criminals were with me in basic, in ait, and at my 1st duty station."
I remember having a few really tough females in Basic with me in 1978. One was an accessory to murder because she was there when her boyfriend killed a police officer. The other was a petty thief who decided I was going to be her next victim; until I kicked her @ss when I found her stealing things from my footlocker, LOL!
Neither of them made it through Basic Training which didn't surprise me.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.