Draft Talk, but Source Is Antiwar

NY Times ^ | 1-3-03 | By CLYDE HABERMAN

[hellinahandcart]

I noticed this at the last big antiwar rally. Rumblings about recruitment in poor and minority neighborhoods, as if that were some sort of exploitation and individual choice never entered into the matter. It's still "the military is EVIL" but with a new twist; they're oppressing "Americans of color" by letting them join. Therefore everyone should be forced to serve. They think that will stop the war.

Then I heard it from a bunch of deluded Gore-worshippers at his booksigning last month. "They're going after poor black kids to kill in battle! Why aren't there more rich white boys serving? In my grandfather's day EVERYONE served! We need laws to FORCE everyone again! It's not fair to let people choose!" No amount of statistics would convince them that the armed forces are not 99.9% dirt-poor desperate black & hispanic youths.

Now it's coming from Congress. Interesting how the Democrats and the communists are coordinating their antiwar talking points now, isn't it?

It's like they think no one notices. Or they are so desperate to prevent us from DOING anything to thwart the people who want to eliminate Western values from the world, that they no longer care if some of us notice.

[Jim Noble]

Well, I think we need a draft (so much so that I don't even think it's a serious question).

And, if it matters, I have only two sons and they are 22 and 18.

I think it is, or should be, a serious caution with regard to Iraq and to the WOT in general that discussion of a draft has so much anti-GWB potential that it is being used proactively by his enemies.

[Oldeconomybuyer]

Chapter 2:

Race/Ethnicity

Significant racial/ethnic differences exist among the Services, as shown in Table 2.5. Approximately 39 and 42 percent of Army and Navy accessions, respectively, are minorities, as compared to 33 percent of Marine Corps recruits and 32 percent of Air Force recruits. The overall percentage of minority recruits increased slightly from 37 percent in FY 1999 to 38 percent in FY 2000. The larger proportion of minority recruits generally mirrors the trend in the comparable civilian population.

Figure 2.2 illustrates the race/ethnicity distribution of enlisted accessions for the 28-year period, FYs 1973–2000. [footnote 18] Understanding the race/ethnicity profiles requires some explanation of events during the years up to 1985, before describing the current situation. The percentage of minority enlisted accessions increased, with some fluctuations, during the years following the end of conscription. The number of Black accessions peaked in FY 1979. Hispanic accessions also peaked in FY 1979 (ignoring aberrant data for FY 1976). Accessions of "Other" minorities, a very small proportion of new recruits, have generally shown a gradual increase from less than 1 percent in FY 1973 to 6 percent in FY 2000. The increase of minorities coincided with a miscalibration of the ASVAB, and consequent drop in the aptitude of accessions, both Whites and minorities, beginning in January 1976. The miscalibration led to erroneous enlistment of many low-scoring applicants. Thus, representation of minorities, particularly Blacks (whose test scores, on average, are generally lower than those of Whites), increased during the miscalibration period. The error was corrected by September 1980. [footnote 19]

Table 2.5. Race/Ethnicity and Gender of FY 2000 Active Component NPS Accessions, by Service, and Civilians 18–24 Years Old (Percent)
	Army		Navy		Marine Corps		Air Force		DoD
MALES
White	64.8		59.5		67.8		70.7		64.9
Black	19.5		19.2		12.4		16.9		17.6
Hispanic	11.1		12.0		14.5		7.1		11.3
Other	4.6		9.3		5.3		5.4		6.2
Total	100.0		100.0		100.0		100.0		100.0
FEMALES
White	48.2		50.9		59.5		58.8		52.3
Black	36.3		27.8		18.0		26.2		30.3
Hispanic	10.2		11.9		16.1		8.3		10.6
Other	5.3		9.4		6.4		6.7		6.8
Total	100.0		100.0		100.0		100.0		100.0
TOTAL
Male	79.1		81.6		92.9		74.1		81.2
Female	20.9		18.4		7.1		25.9		18.8
White	61.3		57.9		67.2		67.6		62.5
Black	23.0		20.8		12.8		19.3		20.0
Hispanic	10.9		12.0		14.6		7.4		11.2
Other	4.7		9.3		5.4		5.7		6.3
NON-INSTITUTIONALIZED CIVILIANS 18–24 YEARS OLD
White 65.6	Black 14.3		Hispanic 15.0		Other 5.1		Total 100.0		Male 49.8		Female 50.2
Columns may not add to total due to rounding. Also see Appendix Tables B-3 (Race/Ethnicity by Service and Gender) and B-4 (Ethnicity by Service). Source: Civilian data from Bureau of Labor Statistics Current Population Survey File, October 1999 – September 2000.

 

Figure 2.2. Race/ethnicity of Active Component NPS accessions, FYs 1973–2000.

 

 

Revised AFQT and education standards in the early 1980s limited the high minority representation levels of the late 1970s. [footnote 20] By FY 1983, the proportion of Black recruits had returned to approximately the same level as before the test scoring error (18 percent Blacks in FY 1975). By the mid-1980s, a gradual increase had resumed. Not until FY 1987 did Hispanic recruit levels return to FY 1975 proportions. Higher high school dropout rates among Hispanics (29 percent), compared to Whites and Blacks (7 and 13 percent, respectively), confound the recruitment of qualified Hispanic applicants. [footnote 21] The Services have accessed a greater proportion of Hispanics each year since FY 1985, when less than 4 percent of enlistees were Hispanic. Today, more than 11 percent of enlistees are Hispanic.

Blacks. In FY 2000, Blacks comprised nearly 20 percent of enlisted recruits, approximately 6 percentage points more than in the civilian population (14 percent). The Army continues to have the highest percentage of Black accessions, 23 percent in FY 2000. In the aftermath of Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm and in the midst of the drawdown (FY 1991), there were lower proportions of Black recruits than in previous years. From FY 1992 to FY 2000 there were slight increases in Black accession rates most years, nearly reaching pre-drawdown levels of 21 percent Black accessions.

While Black men comprise nearly 18 percent of DoD male recruits, Black women make up more than 29 percent of female recruits (Table 2-5 and Appendix Table B-3). Black women in FY 2000 comprised 36 percent of Army female recruits, 28 percent of Navy female recruits, 18 percent of Marine Corps female recruits, and 26 percent of Air Force female recruits. In comparison, the proportion of Black men ranged from 12 percent of Marine Corps male recruits to 20 percent of Army male recruits.

Hispanics. As the proportion of Hispanics has been increasing in the civilian population, so has the proportion of enlisted Hispanics. However, Hispanics were underrepresented among enlisted accessions in FY 2000, 11 percent of recruits compared to 15 percent of civilian 18- to 24-year-olds. The Marine Corps had the highest proportion of Hispanic accessions (15 percent) in FY 2000, followed by the Navy, Army, and Air Force (12, 11, and 7 percent, respectively).

The proportion of Hispanic accessions has increased over the years (Appendix Table D-7). In FY 1983, less than 4 percent of new recruits were Hispanic. Today, more than 11 percent of enlisted accessions are Hispanic. One factor influencing the representation of Hispanics in the military is high school graduation rates; Hispanics are less likely to earn a high school diploma than those in other racial/ethnic groups. [footnote 22] In FY 2000, 57 percent of 18- to 24-year-old Hispanics completed high school (Tier 1) or earned an alternative credential (Tier 2) compared to 74 percent of Blacks and 84 percent of Whites.

"Other" minorities. Members of "Other" racial minorities (e.g., Native Americans, Asians, and Pacific Islanders) are greater than 6 percent; they are slightly overrepresented in the Services. The proportion of "Other" minorities ranges from 5 to 9 percent in the Services, with the Navy having the largest percentage. In the civilian population, 5 percent of 18- to 24-year-olds are "Other" racial minorities, an increase of more than 2 percentage points since FY 1981.

[footnote 18] See Appendix Tables D-5 (White Accessions), D-6 (Black Accessions), D-7 (Hispanic Accessions), and D-8 ("Other" Accessions) by Service and Fiscal Year. [back to paragraph]

[footnote 19] Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Manpower, Reserve Affairs, and Logistics), A Report to the House Committee on Armed Services: Aptitude Testing of Recruits (Washington, DC, 1980). [back to paragraph]

[footnote 20] Congressional Budget Office, Social Representation in the U. S. Military (Washington, DC, 1989), p. 54. [back to paragraph]

[footnote 21] See U.S. Department of Education, The Digest of Education Statistics 2000 (NCES 2001-034) (Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, 2001), Table 106; and U.S. Department of Education, Dropout Rates in the United States: 1999 (NCES 2001-022) (Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, 2000), Table A. [back to paragraph]

[footnote 22] See U.S. Department of Education, The Condition of Education 2001 (NCES 2001-072) (Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, 2001), p. 51; U.S. Department of Education, Dropout Rates in the United States 1999 (NCES 2001-022) (Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, 2000), pp. 17-19; and previous Population Representation reports. [back to paragraph]

previous | next

[leadpenny]

What is really sad is that Charlie Rangel is turning the issue of a draft into an obscene discussion. He openly admits he is playing politics with the bill he is about to propose. He brings discredit upon himself and the millions of men who have answered the call in previous wars. The truly shameful aspect of this is that he did not, nor did any other democrat, call for a draft when his leader, x42, was sending young Americans all over the world during the 90's.

Let the record show that I have always been for having a draft as part of a requirement for national service but I will not align myself with the likes of Charlie Rangel.

[hellinahandcart]

The truly shameful aspect of this is that he did not, nor did any other democrat, call for a draft when his leader, x42, was sending young Americans all over the world during the 90's.

They sure didn't have any trouble understanding the "volunteer" concept back then, did they? And as long as they could think of "their" armed forces as a large job & scholarship program/peacekeeping force/social experiment, they had absolutely no problem with minority recruitment either.

No, the whole reason behind this draft talk now is to prevent a war, because they wish to prevent the massive losses we will inflict on our enemies. Because there are some who wish our enemies to prevail. And for them to prevail, the U.S. must stand idle and indecisive while the other side grows ever stronger. It's as transparent as glass to me.

I will not align myself with the likes of Charlie Rangel.

Or the ANSWER crowd either. I just think it's funny that all of a sudden it's harder to tell the difference.

[300winmag]

"I believe that if those calling for war knew that their children were likely to be required to serve — and to be placed in harm's way — there would be more caution and a greater willingness to work with the international community in dealing with Iraq," he wrote. "A renewed draft will help bring a greater appreciation of the consequences of decisions to go to war."

When we wind up in a war big enough to devote 60% of the GNP to the military, and need 20 million men under arms (as in WW2), I'll be be willing to talk "draft". Hell, I'll expect women to be ordered to fill 50% of all non-volunteer positions. Until then, talk of the draft is merely intended to wreck the military, or as a tool of social engineering.

As for the "children of the elite", in WW2 most of them were given commissions, and comfy postings far from the killing. It was damn few that volunteered for front-line duty, as either officers or enlisted.

[leadpenny]

And as long as they could think of "their" armed forces as a large job & scholarship program/peacekeeping force/social experiment, they had absolutely no problem with minority recruitment either.

At one point during the many "wag-the-dog" deployments of the Clinton years (maybe it was Rambouillet), Mad-woman Halfbright made a sarcastic remark to Colin Powell or Shalikasvilli to the effect, "Why do you have this fine military and not want to use it." Clinton/Albright/Cohen never seemed to grasp the concept that we have a strong military JUST BECAUSE we don't want to use it unless it's absolutely necessary.

[Stultis]

It's like they think no one notices. Or they are so desperate to prevent us from DOING anything to thwart the people who want to eliminate Western values from the world, that they no longer care if some of us notice.

They sure as hell noticed here in Texas. Senate candidate Ron Kirk (former Dallas mayor) had worked very hard to build a reputation/perception as a moderate, pro-business Democrat. He blew it all during the race with some comment about how po' black kids would be dying for whitey in Iraq. The statement was actually phrased much less objectionably than that, but it still hurt him bad.

[thirst4truth]

Almost no member of Congress has a son or daughter in the military.

The number is one. Just one child of the 535 members of congress currently serve in the military!

[riversarewet]

Just think, soon we will see mass demostrations on every major University campus, "Bring back the draft", and "Hell no, we want to go"

This is great news, let the mobs flow into the streets and riot over the lack of a draft.

This is too strange, even for the Twilight Zone of Socilist Democrat thinking.

[Oldeconomybuyer]

Bump #5

[xm177e2]

Among other things, these people argue, a universal draft — women as well as men — would reduce the cultural gap between civilians and the military. It would provide a shared civic experience, which may be more important than ever in an age that worships diversity and hyphenated Americanism. (Yes, we have jury duty, but it's not quite the same, is it?)

The military does not exist to bring people together, bridge cultural gaps, and fight racism. It does all of those things, but those are not why it exists.

The American military exists to defend America. It is not a giant social experiment. Rangel wants to cripple our military so we won't use it. He wants us to take higher casualties, so we will be anti-war. That is NOT a patriotic sentiment, to say the least!

[xm177e2]

Any source for that?

[Stultis]

How do we decrease the effectiveness of the American military and weaken its ability to protect us and defeat our enemies?

How do well swell the ranks of blame-American-first protestors and bring back the 'good ole days' of the Vietnam era when unwashed hordes of radicals rampaged through the streets of our cities?

Rangel thinks he has the answer.

[Ramius]

It would appear from the data that the proportion of minorities in the military more or less mirrors the general population.

The only significant difference is that it would appear that the Marines (note: the first ones to hit the beach and suffer the highest casualties) have fewer minorities than the general population. Is Charlie suggesting that there should be more?

[LiberalBuster]

>>Rumblings about recruitment in poor and minority
>>neighborhoods, as if that were some sort of exploitation
>>and individual choice never entered into the matter.

It is free choice. But, don't you find it the least bit curious that the promoters of war (e.g. Bill Kristol and other warmongering neocons) rarely send their own sons or daughters into battle. But, instead, less educated folks end up carrying more of the load? Is this pure coincidence? Or perhaps, it's just a sad commentary on our opinion-making elite, who wreak with hypocrisy.

[Spyder]

Did anyone note the reaction of the troops to Bush's speech at Ft. Hood? I certainly never saw a reaction like that to Clinton (my husband is Army x17 years now). I do resent the attitude shown by the left in that there's no way the military can look good in their eyes - if there were fewer blacks in the military than in the general population, then the military discriminates; but if they're over-represented it must be because the evil ones commanding them want to see blacks fighting and dying.

From the military folk I know, they're anything BUT the "dregs" of society that Charlie Rangel seems to think they are. With a few exceptions (as is true in any line of work) they're good, hard working men and women. The last thing we need is a draft to pull in east-coast libs with an attitude who think they're too good to have to deal with the rest of us. It might be "good for them," but it certainly wouldn't be good for the military.

[cynicom]

North Korea has proven we are short on "numbers". Bush and Rumsfeld know this,however it would be political suicide to bring on a draft.

Clinton took over from Bush and we had 18 full Army divisions, when Clinton left we had 10. Now this Bush has to address the subject of a draft if we are to be the worlds cop.

[Jim Noble]

>>however it would be political suicide to bring on a draft<<

That being so, perhaps we are a bit overextended?