By So what does everyone think of this?:
The U.S. military is too white and too male at the top and needs to change recruiting and promotion policies and lift its ban on women in combat, an independent report for Congress said Monday.Seventy-seven percent of senior officers in the active-duty military are white, while only 8 percent are black, 5 percent are Hispanic and 16 percent are women, the report by an independent panel said, quoting data from September 2008.
One barrier that keeps women from the highest ranks is their inability to serve in combat units. Promotion and job opportunities have favored those with battlefield leadership credentials.
The report ordered by Congress in 2009 calls for greater diversity in the military’s leadership so it will better reflect the racial, ethnic and gender mix in the armed forces and in American society. [Associated Press]
It is quite telling that nothing in this article is mentioned about promoting effective leaders as General Officers instead of the ticket punchers, which has been an effort that Defense Secretary Robert Gates has been working hard to do in recent years. Personally I don’t care if a General Officer is male, female, black, white, or has polka dots; what matters is effective leadership. With this panel it appears effective leadership is not what matters, what matters is gender and race. If anyone is wondering how someone like Malik Hasan was allowed to conduct his extremist activities without any questions from his leadership the MLDC report gives you a good indication why:
This here just reinforces why a senior leader would not want to take the risk of being called a bigot and a racist by trying to take action against someone like Hasan because it would effect their promotion opportunities in the future. That is why Hasan was promoted and moved around by his superiors instead of being chaptered out of the military.
Now lets discuss the real reason why more African-American Soldiers are not being promoted to General Officer ranks. To start off with why didn’t the AP article mention such important facts like African-American Soldiers are primarily enlisting in combat support military occupational specialties (MOS)?:
Though blacks make up about 30 percent of the military, the percentage of deaths has been less because of their job placement, said David Segal, director of the University of Maryland’s Center for Research on Military Organization.
“Blacks are attracted to military jobs that have transfer value to the civilian economy when they leave the military. Enlisting in the infantry doesn’t do that for you,” Segal told BlackAmericaWeb.com.
“Historically, blacks have been over represented in the military, but not in the combat arms,” Segal said. “A larger percentage of blacks work in administrative jobs, logistical services or medical fields.”
According to data from the U.S. Department of Defense, 41 percent of blacks in the military work in technical jobs, 47 percent are in administrative jobs and 12 percent are in combat. [New America Media]
So 88% of blacks are serving in non-combat arms MOS when combat arms branches make up 59% of the General Officers slots. It is easy to then understand why there are so few black General Officers. The problem is that more young black men & women need to enlist in combat arms branches, but they are not according to the University of Maryland researcher because of a belief that being an infantryman or a tanker does not carry over well into civilian employment. It would also be interesting to know what percentage of black officer in combat arms branches stay in long enough to be considered for promotion to General compared to their peers?
Here is some more facts for people to ponder, the number of blacks enlisting in the US Army has been dropping due to the ongoing wars:
Racial data on enlistees, compiled for Military Update by the Defense Manpower Data Center (DMDC), show that in fiscal 2002, the year before the U.S. invasion of Iraq, the Army had 43,400 blacks among its first-term soldiers, or 21 percent of the total. By 2006, the number of blacks on their first hitch had fallen to 30,000, down to 14.5 percent.
That’s a drop of 30 percent in black representation over four years. [Stars & Stripes]
Read the rest of the article, but supposedly many in the black community are telling black youths not to join. Since the S&S article was published in 2007 I wonder if the election of President Obama has done anything to increase the number of blacks enlisting because I could not find any current numbers.
However, the bottom line is that the problem is that more African-Americans need to become commissioned officers in combat arms branches, which no one in the military is preventing them from doing. The simple solution to the problem would be to assess more African-American cadets into combat arms branches despite their wishes to want to assess into combat service support specialties. I’m not advocating for this though because do you really want someone in the Infantry that doesn’t want to be there? Something else to keep in mind is that any increase in the number of African-American General Officers would take decades considering the time it takes to make such a high rank after assessing more blacks into combat arms branches.
Here are some statistics on the racial make up of the US Army:
What is interesting about this is that despite whites making up an increasingly smaller portion of the Army they are bearing the brunt of combat casualties. In Iraq 70% of Soldiers killed were white despite making up roughly 59% of the Army. This makes sense considering that whites make up the largest portion of combat arms Soldiers.
What else I find interesting about the MLDC report is that nothing about Asians is mentioned. I couldn’t find any numbers on this, but since they weren’t mentioned it leads me to believe that Asian have as many or more General Officers than their population size. Could it be because many more Asians join combat arms branches by percentage of population than blacks?:
You can read more about race and US military recruiting here.
Here is a final thought on race in the US Army for everyone, when is the Military Leadership Diversity Commission going to publish a report on the ethnicity of Sergeant Majors and Senior NCO’ in the US Army?
As far as females I have made my thoughts on this topic quite clear before. Though the AP article unsurprisingly doesn’t say this, but if you read the actual report it says that the barriers should be dropped if the women meet certain “qualifications”:
As I have been saying I have no issues with women in the infantry if they can meet infantry standards; the concern is that standards will be dropped for females for equal opportunity reasons. Considering the different standards currently used for the Physical Training test this is a valid concern.
Now lets go back to my main point I started out with, is that the US Army should promote quality leaders and if that person just happens to be a minority or female great, but it should not be the defining of that General Officer.
3:51 pm on March 7th, 2011 1
Does every article have to be about "evil white males"?Minorities are less likely to have college degrees so fewer are officers.
4:12 pm on March 7th, 2011 2
"What else I find interesting about the MLDC report is that nothing about Asians is mentioned."
eh. asians are conveniently forgotten when it comes to talk about discrimination faced by minorities. too rarely do asians fall in line with pro minority arguments.
6:56 pm on March 7th, 2011 3
damn it will never stop until we all have to make up a specific percentage of the pie???
that rengel idiot was just on fox news screaming about bringing back the draft because minoroties had to make up the majority of the military ranks since they are poor and dont have options as us bad white people
8:20 pm on March 7th, 2011 4
I conclude that whites are more enthusiastic than blacks about fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.
9:05 pm on March 7th, 2011 5
Yeah. The white guys all got together and voted to fight there. They carefully excluded the blacks and Hispanics.
9:49 pm on March 7th, 2011 6
I think one inherently goes with the other. I for one, have found nothing but leadership in a black, homosexual, woman. Also envisioning a female or male leader performing fellatio is very comforting along with receiving anal penetration. My god, if that doesn't define leadership, were lost. I'm sure Patton was actually a woman.
Jessica Lynch should be promoted to the highest rank! She defined leadership in the most challenging conditions. Or did she freeze and drop her weapon, I forget.
11:33 pm on March 7th, 2011 7
Not a shortage of Blacks in Aviation Support units, nor Supply, from my experience.
Oh and race IS the most important thing in these units.
My last year 04 thru 05 I was in Iraq. I was at first a squad leader (until I found a way out of the Platoon and went over to Force Protection). A related but different story. Sadly I was white. Sadly because all members of the squad were a mix of blacks and browns with a pacific islander or two. This didn't set well with by Hispanic Platoon Sergeant. I learned while in Kuwait waiting to return, that he had asked one of my squad members if he thought I was racist. (being the only white and in charge of the squad, I MUST be, right?) After all, I SELECTED my squad members. Right? Sarcasm, for those that don't know.
The troop that was asked was an E4 with three years in and I a Staff Sergeant with 19 years in with the required EO yearly meetings. How the hell did I stay in with a racist attitude? But it was assumed by a Hispanic that it was possible. Some of those squad members are now friends on face book with me.
The Army does promote based on race and sex. Nothing else explains the piss-poor leaders that I experienced in the Army.
The feeling of entitlement is alive and well, at least until I retired in 2005. I could write a chapter on this subject and only list my experiences.
If you are a non-white Join the frigging ARMY! Same for females and it seems gays as well. They don't call the Army "The Ghetto" for no reason".
1:34 am on March 8th, 2011 8
I don't see how opening combat arms assignments to females would help them to move up the rank ladder for the same reason you don't see a whole lot of male nurses around. Girls just tend to not have a long term interest in the military. From what I saw as an officer in the CSS world, they join for very limited goals (education, resume enhancement, marriage, etc.). Also once they have met their personal goal they by and large attempt to get out at the earliest opportunity. I just don't see this changing no matter what career fields open up to them in the future.
3:29 am on March 8th, 2011 9
Chris in Dallas, the reason you don't "see" a lot of male nurses around is that you think they're something else – Dr., x-ray tech, ortho tech, etc. But, statistacally, you're right. The VA has the highest rate of nurses who are male at about 20%, myself included.
As far as the information above, I can at least anecdotally, attest to the makeup of the combat arms. I work at a VA and treat primarily pt's w/ substance abuse and PTSD. The OVERWHELMING characteristics of young Iraq/Afghan COMBAT vets coming through our wards are young and white, often in trouble w/ the law.
Comparatively speaking, I have seen very, very few blacks seeking help for PTSD and/or substance abuse from the current war. The Vietnam era vets are pretty much balanced with what the makeup of the military was at that time. Marines are represented in greater numbers comparitively speaking, according to the size of the Marine Corps to the Army – but they have proportionately greater numbers of combat troops.
Charlie Rangell should be careful what he wishes for. If the draft is brought back, then maybe less than 30% of the Army would be black. But, when you get drafted, they also assign you an MOS, and it's usually not one of the more comfortable ones.
4:18 am on March 8th, 2011 10
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
What I don't like is that this all smacks of Clinton-era "Caring for Others" type thinking. And yes, in addition to every other thing a commander has to take care of now, he'll probably have to worry about his "diversity enhancement policy letter/program", as will his rater/senior rater.
4:56 am on March 8th, 2011 11
When DADT is totally repealed I can guarantee you because of my 20 year experience with the military that there IS going to be either a written or unwritten quota for homosexuals for promotion. I don't care if the authorities say that it wont happen or if they deny it once DADT repeal happens. The quota WILL be there. The powers that be say that questions about sexual orientation wont be asked, I say bullshot. When the push for women to be advanced happened in the 1980's & 90's a lot of females were promoted who quite frankly were not qualified. We has a female CSM at one of the military hospitals I was stationed at who couldn't lead a dog to a butcher shop. This PC crap just needs to stop. These affirmative action aberrations need to be relieved of command. The reason for the existence of the US Military is to defend the interest of our nation by deterrence & if necessary by killing people & breaking things. It's purpose IS NOT social engineering so liberals will have something to do their masters or PHD thesis' on.
5:03 am on March 8th, 2011 12
Tom L., time will tell on the quota issue. But you are dead on when it comes to the military being a force that projects death and destruction if needed, and not being a place for social experimentation.
8:33 am on March 8th, 2011 13
#11, there already are so many formal and informal "networks" taking care of others who don't deserve the promotions. Just look at masons…
8:54 am on March 8th, 2011 14
If one's goal is to neuter the USA, one could make some serious "progress" by destroying marriage/family, wrecking the housing market, crippling domestic energy production, and assigning politically-correct nincompoops to high-level positions in the military…
Not that that was President Obama's actual plan; but he's done an awful lot of that in just over two years (and the previous occupants of the Oval Office were not a lot better, either)…
10:04 am on March 8th, 2011 15
#14 agree with you on ALL counts.