"Inequality of Sacrifice" Posted by: Dale Franks
on Tuesday, July 12, 2005
Let me also follow up McQ's post about Acel Moore's Philadelphia Inquirer article by pointing out a base canard contained in the article:
As I watched the Fourth of July celebrations and the raising of the American flag, my thoughts were on the war in Iraq and the inequality of sacrifice by Americans.
The casualties, to invert a phrase, do not look like America. It is the working class, the lower middle class, and rural America who disproportionately make up the military and have thus borne the burden, and it is those segments of society that are blacker and browner than America as a whole.
Ah. The casualties don't "look like America". I presume this means that not enough white people are dying in Iraq. It's the browner and blacker people who are paying a disproportionate price. I see.
Actually, I don't see, because the numbers don't seem to bear that out.
Now, granted, the Census Bureau numbers are confusing. Hispanics are counted twice, because they fall into more than one ethnic category. Still, a look at the KIA ratios shows that the casualties are, if anything, slightly whiter than the population as whole. A smaller percentage of blacks, Hispanics, or Asians have died in Iraq than their percentage composition of the population. The only non-white ethnic group that has a disproportionate ethnic share of casualties are the Hawaiians and Pacific Islanders, but, of course, their small population makes them a statistical outrider anyway. But this idea that blacks or Hispanics are dying in disproportionate numbers is utter hogwash, unless, by "disproportionate" you mean that too few of them are dying, rather than too many.
But the latter certainly isn't what Mr. Moore means. His implied thesis is that minorities bear a disproportionate share of the military burden, which highlights the essentially racist nature of American society. But his complaint that the casualties "don't look like America" is simply a slander, and demonstrably so.
Until there is greater equality of sacrifice, especially among political leaders who send others off to war when they themselves never went, I'll have trouble supporting this war, too.
Like, you know, FDR, who never served a day in the military, and intentionally got us involved in World War II. And he could've fought in WWI, the coward. He wasn't a cripple then.
Here's a clue for Mr. Moore: Our military is controlled by civilians. It always has been, and hopefully, always will be. Prior military service is not, and never has been a requirement to serve as President and Commander in Chief, nor is it a required qualification to send American troops into battle. To suggest otherwise is not only factually incorrect, it is a positively dangerous idea.
Moreover, I'd be very curious to know whether Mr. Moore raised the same objections when President Clinton was sending American troops into harms way in Haiti, Bosnia, or Kosovo. If not, then he should have a nice hot cup of STFU. Come to think of it, if this is an example of his ability to honestly frame an argument, then he should probably enjoy a delicious mug anyway.
A brilliant post. Based on fact, which is a nice contrast to Mr. Moore’s wishful conjecture based on his desire to be perceived as a public bleeding heart for minorities. If Mr. Moore is a typical liberal we know that he did not make this point during President Clinton’s term, but so what? Writing racially based charges without checking the facts is detestable. His comments are also condescending toward all of the troops involved. The Hawaiian troops of Japanese descent were rightfully proud of their contribution to the WWII war effort (442nd Reginmental Combat Team, if memory serves – if I were a liberal I would look it up). They were not concerned with the issues that seemingly so excite Mr. Moore, nor should they have been IMO. Mr. Moore’s article appears to be just more elite, condescending liberal HS and should be so identified.
But KeeRok, that would mean that most of the troops would support the war effort! (Actually, even liberal troops probably support the war effort, but that’s a separate issue.)
What would that mean, since the whole idea of the chickenhawk meme is that those who serve (presumably) oppose having to go to war?
I mean, if troops support the war, and only troops should have an opinion, then the war would be justified.
Wait, that can’t be right, b/c that would mean these men and women would be willing to put their lives on the line. Why would they do that, over a project that is immoral and wrong. How could that be?!?
I suppose that maybe the war isn’t immoral and wrong.
Nah.
They must be brainwashed, the poor dears. Yeah, that’s the ticket....
Moreover, I’d be very curious to know whether Mr. Moore raised the same objections when President Clinton was sending American troops into harms way in Haiti, Bosnia, or Kosovo. If not, then he should have a nice hot cup of STFU. Come to think of it, if this is an example of his ability to honestly frame an argument, then he should probably enjoy a delicious mug anyway.
For addition numbers on the social makeup of the military you can browse through the reports from DoD called the Population Representation in the Military Services. Just change the year in the URL to get previous years (I don’t think they currently go beyond 2003). You’ll find that the racial makeup is similar to the civilian population.
Additionally, here is a briefing from 2003 in which the income level of new recruits is discussed:
Now, in terms of median income, for whites—now again, this is enlisted versus—and this is against the entire civilian population, so it’s not quite the right comparison. But for whites, the median total gross household income in 1999 for our enlisted population was about $33,500, versus $44,400 for the civilian population. Again, that omits officers from the DOD numbers...
For African Americans, however, the total gross household income of our active duty personnel, their parents, that is, was $32,000 versus $27,900 for the population at large. So specifically to Mr. Rangel’s charge, it’s not quite the picture that he would argue exists. These are actually—for our African-American recruits, recruits come out better, above average, in fact, near the national average, in terms of household income...
And among the ways that we get there is we demand a higher level of educational aptitude achievement for most of our recruits than is true of the population at large. We require almost all recruits to be high school diploma graduates. So actually a higher standard. In other words, you made it successfully through a high school, which is a strong predictor of whether or not you can be productive in a highly structured environment. And typically, we’re aiming to try to get recruits from the upper end of the mental aptitude distribution. We give the so-called Armed Forces qualification tests. Our preference is for candidates who are in categories 1 through 3(a), which is above average.
So we are aiming to get an above-average population in terms of the enlisted recruits alone. So it’s not terribly surprising, when you put those kind of filters on, that you’re going to be selecting from individuals across the board, African-Americans included, whose parents are—in quotes—"more successful."
Again, this comes directly back this charge that somehow it’s the poor and disadvantaged that are defending the country.
But all this reference to statistics and such is silly.
What kind of people would sign up for a profession whose job was killing other people?
Only poor, stupid, disadvantaged types, desperate for some kind, any kind of out from their urban hellhole, plus rednecks who aren’t allowed to lynch people legally anymore would do that! Psychopaths and street people, really.
No self-respecting person w/ an education, and refined sensibilities, would go serve in the military! That’s why they don’t understand, much less welcome, the help of folks who want to keep them out of war. Only a few enlightened ones, like Pablo Paredes, see the light!
Just as Red Staters don’t vote their own economic interest, military people fail to see how they’re used and abused, brainwashed and exploited.
I think a couple peices of data would help the argument even more. What is the ethnic break down of the military over all? And what is the ethnic break down of the service people who are actually in Iraq? We’d also need a good break down of what percentage of each service is in place.
But it’s an irritating little table. Not to mention a touch out of date. I’m still looking for more recent data. But this is for the military overall and not just who is in Iraq. Army (Male/Female/Total) White 79.68% 64.67% 76.82% Black 13.27% 27.13% 15.91% AIAN 1.05% 1.66% 1.17% Asian 1.15% 0.95% 1.12% NHPI 0.45% 0.41% 0.44% Hispanic 10.27% 12.73% 10.74%
I’m confused on the Hispanic line, but I’ll figure it out later.
Marines (Male/Female/Total) White 81.33% 74.48% 80.84% Black 8.76% 12.88% 9.05% AIAN 1.11% 2.27% 1.19% Asian 0.91% 0.96% 0.91% NHPI 0.33% 0.51% 0.35% Hispanic 14.41% 17.64% 14.64%
Civilians (By the report) White 79.48% 77.32% 78.40% Black 13.21% 14.98% 14.10% AIAN 0.99% 0.91% 0.95% Asian 4.10% 4.24% 4.17% NHPI 0.32% 0.38% 0.35% Hispanic 18.56% 16.09% 17.33%
Hopefully my cut/paste job didn’t mess up much, but you can check the report yourself.
I think looking at these numbers, you’re analysis is probably right on. I chose the army and marines since they are the primary combatants by way of numbers. I doubt you could find any data on special forces, but that would just bolster the results.
Nice job indeed, Dale, but you know what? The same thing will be endlessly reprinted and repeated, in Congress no less, because the "reality-based party" often seems more like the "reality-averse party".
They serve a higher truth, you know? A more... culturally and spiritually correct truth. And they are proud to lie in the service of that truth.
As matter of fact, that’s probably why people like Acel Moore feel a strong kinship to Communists (whoops, sorry, "progressives") and jihadists, both of whom absolutely believe that lying in the service of their truths is absolutely required.
