Is This Really an All-Volunteer Army?

WASHINGTON — Does the United States military have to be representative of American society? The question has hung heavy since war with Iraq first seemed inevitable, and with it the possibility of heavy casualties. Now, with that war at a climax, a small band of critics continues to maintain that the all-volunteer force — which is 30 years old this year — is all-volunteer in name only.

They argue that relative economic disadvantage has replaced local draft boards in determining who enters the military, especially the enlisted ranks, and that it is un-American to have an affluent nation being defended by working-class young people, heavily layered with minorities.

"It's not fair that the people that we ask to fight the war are people who join the military because of economic conditions," says Representative Charles B. Rangel, the New York Democrat, who advocates a new draft.

When compared with other groups of the same age, the American military, particularly in its enlisted ranks, in fact has fewer rich people. But it also has fewer poor ones. It has more Southerners and fewer Northeasterners. It has a higher percentage of black people, especially black women, compared with the larger population, but a smaller proportion of Hispanics.

Defenders of the all-volunteer force, particularly in the Pentagon, quickly rebutted Mr. Rangel's arguments. They asserted that the military does reflect the country's population, especially when the number of officers — about one-seventh of the military, virtually all of them college graduates — is considered. They also note that while the median income for households that produce white recruits is lower than for other white homes, the median income of the families of black recruits is actually higher than it is for blacks as a whole.

Moreover, supporters of the volunteer force say, the military is, they say, more professional, better motivated and more stable when soldiers, sailors, pilots and others stay in for longer stints. They point to its performance in the Persian Gulf war, the Afghanistan campaign and now Iraq. And they shudder at returning to the often-troubled conscripted military of the Vietnam era, just to make a point about equity that not everyone feels could even be remedied.

"I served in a draft force," a senior Defense Department official said earlier this year. "I remember when enlisted folks fragged — as we liked to say — threw grenades into the officers' quarters in Vietnam. Not a pretty picture."

Comparisons with Vietnam gloss over the experience of World War II, when an American military force, heavy with conscripts, defeated the German military machine, considered at the time the world's best. Put side by side, the comparisons suggest that when it comes to efficiency and motivation, the issue may not be volunteers versus draftees, but a popular war verses an unpopular one.

But the central question about the volunteer force remains Mr. Rangel's: How much choice is there? In some sense the fact that blacks, especially black women, not only enlist, but re-enlist in a higher proportion than whites is seen as an example of the equal opportunity the armed services provide. But it could also be viewed as indicating the lack of opportunity — real or perceived — for African-Americans in civilian society.

Demographic trends don't promise to make the choices easier. With incomes having stagnated except for those people with college degrees, the percentage of youths choosing to continue their education after high school has exploded. In 1970, about 55 percent of men and about 48 percent of women enrolled in college right out of high school. By 1999, 63 percent of men and 64 percent of women were doing so. The sharp increases, which show no sign of leveling off, have put enormous pressure on military recruiters to fill their quotas.

The Defense Department has responded by trying to reduce the need to make a choice between military service and a college education. In recent years it has expanded programs to help members of the military pay for college after active duty. It has permitted more of them to attend college while in the service. So the issue of who serves and who doesn't becomes more and more a matter of who can afford college without help.

Recruiters' task is further complicated by some more specific educational trends as well. Studies have shown that one of the biggest influences on teenagers' career decisions is the educational attainment of their mothers — more so than of their fathers.

With the spectacular growth in the number of women going to college (they now outnumber men), the Pentagon faces a daunting prospect: some day, those legions of educated mothers will, at the same time, be setting a standard at home that will steer their children more surely toward college, even as their added income will help insure that the family has the money to pay for college without turning to military service.

"Parents are certainly major influences, mothers in particular," said Paul R. Sackett, a professor of psychology at the University of Minnesota who studied the challenges that face military recruiters.

Among one group, Hispanics, increases in college attendance have not kept pace with those among blacks and non-Hispanic whites. This could mean that the percentage of the military made up of Hispanics will grow, and the chances that will happen received a boost from President Bush last July, when he signed an executive order providing that any legal immigrant who has been on active duty since Sept. 11, 2001, may immediately apply for citizenship, bypassing the normal three-year waiting period for military personnel and the five-year period for civilians.

But do all of these changes guarantee that the military will become any more or less reflective of American society? Consider this: Even though a shrinking proportion of teenagers has been seeking to enlist, the number of American teenagers is expected to grow in the coming decade, giving recruiters a bigger pool to appeal to. And even if the armed services sign up more Hispanics, demographers say the percentage of the population that is Hispanic is likely to rise relatively quickly too. So the military may wind up merely reflecting the country's demographic change.

Such calculations — and debates about whether the burden of military service will be fairly distributed — are the price of trying to keep an all-volunteer force in balance with a population that is, itself, constantly changing.

This issue is a real hydra for which I doubt there is an effective STFU.

". . . the first, critical step in pulling Western civilization out of the miasma of racial thinking is to spread the word that there simply is no truth to the notion that there are separate human races."

"As applied to human beings, the concept of race is one of the greatest confirmations of the precept that it is not the things we don’t know that do the most harm, it is the things we do know but aren’t true. Unfortunately, for nearly two centuries, the idea that there are several distinct races among human beings has been quite commonly accepted as a scientifically proven fact. This idea is simply false, as both common sense and modern genetics make quite clear, and the harm it has done is quite incalculable."

From this back issue "The Illusions of Race" from American Outlook

This is just another example of a stalinist leftist trying to keep the natives on the reservation. The thought of Rangle with one of Sadaam's training manuals is scary. When will he start cutting off the ears of those who give him lackluster support.

This article is a slap at everyone who saw service to country as also an opportunity to succeed in life. The training and experience that I received in the Navy is irreplaceable. The men and women I served with were better and more decent folks than my ivy league student colleagues. Many of them came from the lower economic strata - I suppose - though we never much talked about it, because what mattered wasn't where you came from, but your committment to the team. Many then took advantage of educational opportunities provided to go on to other things in life.

True Story:

I used to work for a hedge fund run by a very private billionaire who isn’t well known in the media, but is very well known in financial circles.

One of his assistants, was a irrepressibly cheerful, conservatively attractive girl from a religious blue collar background. She was very well liked, and deservedly so. She could endure rudeness, but she would throw herself out a 55th story window before being rude to someone else.

During my tenure there, Rep. Charles Rangel called the Billionaire and asked if he would like to meet the then president Clinton. His assistant took the call, and reported this to the billionaire while Rep. Rangel was on hold.

“Representative Rangel is on hold sir” she said, “he’d like to know if you would like to meet President Clinton.”

“Tell that no good piece of SXXX to go and FXXX himself. Tell him I wouldn’t meet that AXXHXXX for money.” He said angrily. “Yes sir”. Was her approximate response.

She then picked up the phone, and politely said:

”Representative Rangel, Mr. XXXXX asked me to tell you to go FXXX yourself and that he wouldn’t meet that AXXHXXX for money. (pause) yes sir. thank you.”

Probably not the first time that’s happened to Charlie, and probably won’t be the last, but it was nice to get a chance to see it.

I think that's a factor as well. I grew up in the East Boston/Revere area of Boston and it was definitely Kennedy country - probably 95% Democrat. In fact, I can't remember a single Republican from my youth; it was as if they (Republicans) came from a different country.

Obviously I have been a die-hard Republican since serving in the Marine Corps. President Reagan, whose first term almost exactly coincided with my time in the Marines, was a huge influence on my life. It was the Marine Corps and my Commander-in-Chief that imbued me with the conservative values that I have today. Values, that should go without saying, that have allowed me to leave the Democratic plantation and make a successful life for myself.

Such calculations . . . are the price

Such calculations and quotas termed "affirmative" are a prejudiced price "based on the unmeasurable"

"As Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor expressed it in the 1989 majority decision striking down what she correctly termed as “rigid” racial quotas in the awarding of public contracts, “The dream of a nation of equal citizens in a society where race is irrelevant to personal opportunity and achievement would be lost in a mosaic of shifting preferences based on inherently unmeasurable claims of past wrongs.”

Just exactly WHO does this moron think the "local Draft Boards" DRAFTED???? What a bunch of rosy-spectacle BS this whole nostalgia for the draft is. The draft was inherently unfair, divisive, and lowered the quality of the Army. I can recall a time when the stockades were overflowing with disgruntled draftees (and a lot of folks who enlisted in fear of the draft) and prisoners were being held in CONEX containers.

The United States will NEVER have a draft again. If there comes a time when not enough people think this country is worth defending, then we will go down and be occupied by some more energetic people.

""It's not fair that the people that we ask to fight the war are people who join the military because of economic conditions," says Representative Charles B. Rangel, the New York Democrat, who advocates a new draft.

You are right on, Charley!!!

WELFARE IS MUCH BETTER THAN SERVING YOUR COUNTRY!

"One fact that stands out in my mind is the very small percentage of minorities in special forces."

When I was in SF, there were LOTS of minorities- Hawaiians, Samoans, Guamanians, Tennessee ridge-runners and bootleggers, some Eastern Europeans, even a veteran of the Foreign legion or two.

There were some black professional soldiers- who met the standards that everyone else had to meet.

Since then, there has been aggressive recruiting for "minorities"- now defined almost exclusively as "black".

Will we need a quota system for left-handed Methodists?

Hey! My brother is a left-handed Methodist!

I must be blind or something. I enlisted in the US Air Force in 1984, served for ten years. I didn't really pay attention to how many minority members we had in my squadrons or in my shops. Honestly, I didn't really care - if a mechanic could twist wrenches and produce quality engines, that was the important thing. All this talk about unfair representation in the military though has me thinking back about it now, and I'd have to say that based on my recollection that, if anything, the minorities were under-represented in the service, at least in the squadrons/wings that I served in.

As far as joining because of the lack of economic opportunity, I don't remember anyone pointing to that as a reason for enlisting. I remember a young woman who joined to get out of a small town in Wisconsin (she was looking for a husband) - but for the most part, they joined because it was something they wanted to do. Hot-rod mechanics (we worked on the F-15 and the F-16), electronics geeks - we covered the spectrum, but we did it because we wanted to.

Ok, that's it, I'm finished rambling.

I believe that a direct descendant of both President John Adams and his son John Quincy Adams, was one of those killed when 2 British helicopters crashed. He was from Maine.

I think there have always been many "kinds" of people in the Military. The NYslimes is just stupid... that is all.... liberally stupid with extra poured on top.

Baloney - I'm white and more than middle class by financial standards, and have two of my son's serving. One by his well thought out choice, as that was what he wanted to do. The other, his twin, somewhat questioning his choice after going in, but making the most of it and proudly serving no matter.

My two 18 year old's went in as boy's and at 21 they are now men. I can't think of a better grounding for them.

Unlike what Dem. Charlie Rangle (??) says black Americans do serve but they are a higher % of rear-Ech paper jockies, because they also see the benefits of a career after they ETS.

They are a smaller % of actual front-line troops than in Viet Nam. As to SOF they are a small % but even that is growing. Because there can be NO QUOTAS for SF, or SEALs.
They are there because they CAN do the job.

And history does not mean anything to Dems. Gen James Gavin of the 82 Airborne would not appear in the Victory Parade in NY unless the 555th all Black Airborne Battalion was also allowed to march. The 555th or Triple Nickles was never sent to Europe, they stayed here and became smoke jumpers. Gen Gavin said they are 82 Airborne, regardless of what color thier skin was. The 555th did march in the Parade and after initial shock at Blacks, the crowd cheered these Troops with as much ferver as the rest.

"I didn't really pay attention to how many minority members we had "

Five years ago my son who in now in Iraq graduated from infantry basic at Fort Benning. When you graduate you earn the blue infantry lanyard and can be proud of your achievement that you have done about 6 months of physically demanding and mentally difficult training - a very high drop out rate. Many people tout the Marines but to be an Army Infantryman I would say the caliber is about equal. Non infantry training in the Army of course is mixed-sex and watered down.

One of the things we were hit over the head with in a letter from the commander was the number of minorities in his battalion. So the Army see this as a problem that they needed to tell parents about? We have to get over this Clinton era "white liberal guilt trip"!

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.