« Coffee Snorter: Save On Your Taxes Edition | Main | Oh For Pete's Sake.... »
November 22, 2006
Military Not "So Poor And So Black"
Yesterday the half vast editorial staff refuted Rep. Charles Rangel's past assertions that a draft was needed to keep blacks from becoming cannon fodder in time of war. Contrary to his assertions, the facts are quite simple:
- during Vietnam, blacks died at the same rate as their representation in the general population- during the present conflict, black combat fatalities are markedly lower than both their representation in the U.S. population and in the armed forces
- blacks are underrepresented in the infantry and combat arms. Historically, they have gravitated to clerical and combat service support units. This helps to explain why, during wartime, they suffer a lower percentage of combat casualties than whites, who are overrepresented in infantry, aviation, and the combat arms.
Today, we address the persistent notion that the military is over-recruiting from poor, minority, urban areas and that today's recruits are less educated than their civilian peers. Unsurprisingly, like almost everything else Representative Rangel has said, these allegations turn out to be completely unsupported by the facts.
As the graphic below clearly shows, a recent study performed by the Heritage Foundation persuasively refutes Rep. Rangel's distorted picture of a military which preys on poor teens who join the military from desperation:
Note that in both 1999 and 2003 the smallest proportion of recruits comes from the lowest income quintiles. Moreover, once the war began the number of recruits from the lowest income quintile actually decreased. As to his charge that recruiters prey on inner-city youth:
In April 2005, the Chicago Tribune cited a statistic that 35 percent of those who died in Iraq and Afghanistan were from small, rural towns, in contrast to 25 percent of the population.[7] This point runs counter to the picture, painted by Rangel and others, of heavy enlistment reliance on poor, black urban neighborhoods. Indeed, recruits are disproportionately rural, not urban, and as rural concentration[8] rises, so does military enlistment.The constant increase in the recruit/population ratio contradicts the assertion that military recruiting targets youth in inner cities. In fact, entirely urban areas are the area most underrepresented among recruits. Both suburban and rural areas are overrepresented.
Although this may not reflect Representative Rangel's desire that military demographics precisely mirror the population, the overrepresentation of rural areas should be viewed as beneficial from an economic perspective. Rural areas generally offer a less flexible, thinner job market. The military extends job opportunities into these areas, with technical training that is usually unavailable otherwise.
On to education level. Representative Rangel contends recruits "have" to join the military to get an education since they are less well educated than the general population but here, the facts contradict him as well:
We find that, on average, recruits tend to be much more highly educated than the general public and that this education disparity increased after the war on terrorism began. Comparable detailed education data from the Census classify the education level of individuals into one of seven categories (from less than high school up to graduate/professional degree). We generated a binary variable that assigns a 1 for individuals with a high school diploma or higher and a 0 for less than a high school diploma.If one single statistic could settle this issue, it is this: 98 percent of all enlisted recruits who enter the military have an education level of high school graduate or higher, compared to the national average of 75 percent.[5] In an education context, rather than attracting underprivileged young Americans, the military seems to be attracting above-average Americans. What remains to explore is whether this pattern of military enlistment is (1) consistent across ZIP codes, (2) consistent across all branches of service, and/or (3) consistent proportionally across all levels of education.
The claim could still be made that highly educated recruits are being pulled from underprivileged areas, marked by below-average high school graduation rates. Further analysis shows that any such claim would also be incorrect. We used the binary measure to make a ZIP code–level comparison. By comparing the records of 183,288 individual recruits from the 1999 cohort, using ZIP code of origin, against other Census populations by ZIP code, our analysis shows that roughly half (48.5 percent) of enlistees came from three-digit ZCTAs with above-average national graduation rates. The other half of enlistees came from areas with below-average high school graduation rates.
Regardless of ZIP code area, we also find that enlistees are almost universally better educated than the general population. In all but one of the 885 three-digit ZCTAs, the graduation rate for 1999 recruits was higher than the graduation rate for non-recruits ages 18–24. In 2003, recruits had a higher graduation rate in every ZCTA.
Inflammatory race mongers like Rep. Rangel and John Kerry have issued any number of wild-eyed claims that don't stand up to the facts. The truth is that from their standpoint, bringing back the draft would actually make things worse for the following reasons:
1. Far from being a burden to disadvantaged Americans, the all volunteer military is the best way to keep the poor, the uneducated, and minorities from dying in wartime.
The data clearly show that in an all volunteer force, different demographic groups freely choose to enlist for different reasons and select different occupational specialties. Relatively affluent whites from suburban areas gravitate to the infantry, combat arms, and aviation and therefore have tended to die in disproportionate numbers during wartime. Blacks, on the other hand, gravitate to specialties that will give them valuable professional experience and a leg up once they transition to civilian life: not an unwise choice. If this racial imbalance disturbs Representative Rangel enough that he wishes to put an end to it, let him convince Congress with his usual searing logic.
2. Eliminating the draft allowed the military to be more selective, which is a good thing with today's high-tech warfighting equipment:
This link gives a great picture of the average military recruit: smarter, better educated, and from middle-class suburban or rural America.
3. Can you imagine how much mandatory service would cost the American taxpayer?
When you set aside basic pay and allowances, Congress would have to discontinue all sorts of valuable programs military people have earned over the decades: the GI Bill, medical care, the Veterans administration. We simply wouldn't be able to afford to extend them to everyone. And what about those young people who chose not to serve in the military, but did other service - it wouldn't be "fair" not to give them "equal" benefits.
The nation would go bankrupt.
Rangel is trying to solve a problem (disproportionate combat fatalities for minorities that - it turns out - don't exist) by bringing back a program that contrary to his assertions, would only increase the number of poor, uneducated, minority kids who die in wartime.
Way to go, Rep. Rangel. Let us know how that works out for you.
Posted by Cassandra at November 22, 2006 06:26 AM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.villainouscompany.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1099
Comments
Don't confuse the issue with facts, Cassandra, the memetic scheme has already been chosen. They've got a story and they're running with it. What was that line from "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance"?
"When the myth is stronger than the truth, print the myth."
So what if Rangel is a nasty, race-baiting black bigot? We've had plenty of those in our history, 'cept most of them were white. So what if he's the future chairman of one of the most powerful committees in the House, and will be able to twist arms (metaphorically speaking) to get what he wants (Well! We're at least rid of that awful Tom "The Hammer" DeLay!).
So what. We live in 'interesting times'.
And we won't be fooled again. Heh.
Posted by: Don Brouhaha at November 22, 2006 08:26 AM
Yeah Don,
And what's up with his hair?
Posted by: unkawill at November 22, 2006 04:38 PM
As in many cases, the saying goes, "there are lies, damn lies, and statistics". Something like that. What is interesting is the Quintiles have no demarkation of income levels. Like Al Gore's mistatement about taxes in the 200 election, it depends upon what you define as rich and poor. The Heritage Foundation has never been independent or non-partisan, just as Move ON is not independent.
The rural soldier most likely is represented somewhere in Quintile 2 or 3, and disproportionately he or she is most likely to enlist. So these kids, who have a deep belief (i.e. Midwestern values, etc.) in a "cause", yet they are not "poor". I would imagine they are not rich either. Slicing the economic pie in the manner stated above, by percentage of population, would most likely create the larges range of income at the top level. Here is the range of wealth distribution in our country.
% of US Population % of Wealth Owned
==========================================================
Top 1% 38.1%
Top 96-99% 21.3%
Top 90-95% 11.5%
Top 80-89% 12.5%
Top 60-79% 11.9%
General 40-59% 4.5%
Bottom 40% 0.2%
You can find this illustrated in a graph at United for a Fair Economy (UFE):
http://www.ufenet.org/research/wealth_charts.html
Cleverly, the Heritage Foundation fails to admit that boys and girls coming from families making, say $60,000 are considered in the wealthiest category. Quite misleading. Now, if they broke it down by income and in smaller increments, then we'd be able to see some significance. Agreed, Rangel is wrong, but his point is, if you institute a draft, that top 10% of the population would be just as vulnerable to entering a war as kids from lower standards. He's simply flushing these ideas out in the open.
Posted by: Miguel at November 23, 2006 11:42 AM
Well, the picture is further complicated by geography. The Northeast, which is the richest region and most heavily populated region of the nation, produces only fifteen percent of recruits. The South, which is the poorest region, produces fully forty percent -- a much larger percentage than their percentage of the US population.
And yet, it's only the bottom quintile of wealth that's underrepresented.
The truth is that the Northeast, where the media and academia are concentrated, really does only send poor folks to the military. Most of the nation sends a broad swath of its sons (and a few daughters). The South sends a large percentage of everyone of every degree of wealth.
This points to the fact that there are at least three main streams of culture in America: traditional, new class, and Southern. The traditional culture, which is increasingly poor, earns its living with its hands and values military service. The "new class" culture, which is the technocratic culture that predominates in the Northeast and parts of California, are a bunch of overpaid, over-priviledged pansies, lacking any sense that honor is something real or important, and looking down on the military as backwards because its cultural values are totally different from their own. And the South, of course, remains an honor-based culture that holds military service, especially in the combat arms, to be particularly honorable.
The media are new class types, so they tend to think of the military as something alien, fit for the poor, and backwards. But of course, the military is actually well distributed among the rest of America, and better educated than the population as a whole.
Posted by: Grim at November 23, 2006 12:01 PM
Thanks for further analysis which tends to render insignificant Heritage. Overall, I agree. But, geez, such editorializing on the"new class".
"are a bunch of overpaid, over-priviledged pansies, lacking any sense that honor is something real or important, and looking down on the military as backwards because its cultural values".
I know many technocrats, and they don't look down on military. If you're attributing certain characteristics to this new culture like these, I'd saying your overgeneralizing and drawing a convenient characiture. Throughout the country, there are many hotbeds of technology. Because of technology, the US economy is strong. This class is a product of both our economics and our socio- and geopolitical design. I would posit that many of these younger folks are products of class design. And they hail mostly from the areas you denote.
The South is probably more honor based, but at the same time, the South is still the poorest region in the US, the most racially charged and biased (next to Boston), and providing less opportunity than other economically performing regions. Strip away opinions and pre-conceived notions, and it mostly boils down to economics, and the opportunity those economics provide. So, poor kids from the NE and middle class, working class kids from the South. Watch the death toll on the news when they show each soldiers picture and hometown, and you will see this idea represented. As well, there are many kids from small towns all over America on that list.
Posted by: Miguel at November 24, 2006 11:34 AM
Well, I was attempting to frame my dismissal of the new class in such terms as to make clear that I didn't intend to be fair to it. Of course, one can say that it has its good points as well as its bad ones; most people have.
What you're missing on the South is this: you can't have overrepresentation in the top two quintiles of economics, while drawing 40% of your force from the poorest region of the country, without that region sending a lot of its own elite.
This, in fact, is the case: the South is the only region of the nation that has major military academies other than the formal service ones. If you're looking at where officers come from, the great acadamies are: West Point, Annapolis, the US Air Force Academy, the Citadel (in Charleston, SC) and the Virginia Military Institute (in Lexington, VA). These latter two remain very important to the military, but are staffed almost exclusively by the sons of Southern families of sufficient wealth to afford a private college education.
Thus, it isn't "working class kids from the South." It's everyone from the South -- the richest it has, and the poorest, and everyone in between.
It used to be that the Ivy Leagues contributed a fair percentage, but that has ceased to be true. I do think that the culture of the northeast elite (and the elite in the technocratic areas in California, Seattle, and elsewhere) is hostile to military virtues. If they still produced Theodore Roosevelts and Francis Parkmans, I'd have no complaint with them.
Posted by: Grim at November 24, 2006 07:41 PM
If you have any statistical info on the military composition, I'd love to see a reference. I'd have to say that I didn't consider the notion of Southern elites still contributing to military leadership in the vein you state. Learned something new.
Posted by: Miguel at November 26, 2006 01:30 AM
No problem. There was actually a link in the originally cited post to these -- I wasn't trying to bury it -- but here it is in an easy to find place.
Posted by: Grim at November 26, 2006 09:49 AM
Interesting to look at the breakdown by state. Texas and California contribute rather large numbers of recruits, however, as a percentage of population, states in the South, and rural states, contribute more by representation ratio. Along with ethics relative to military respect and traditional values, I would guess that economic opportunity is another reason that more recruits hale from these areas. I grew up in Spokane, WA, and many kids who would have traditionally enrolled in vocational training rather than go to college (i.e. mechanics, HVAC tech, plumber, etc.) in the past are now lacking those choses due to underfunding. Many of these young people are choosing the military. Spokane, which with its surrounding areas is quite rural, is one of those mountain state types who contribute more recruits than Seattle, for instance.
I've always thought a compulsory military service would be a very good experience for every young person. I'm quite liberal, but the training and experiences received could do much for our society. Case in point, a kid who went to a wealthy high school in San Francisco, went to college at West Point. He was a wild kid, and quite smart. Now he is a graduate, and heading off to Iraq for a tour. He is gutsy, polite, spirited and passionate. I may disagree with this particular war and its pretenses, but if we are there, I'd wish anyone of these kids great training and full support of our country. And that means all necessary to keep them safe.
Posted by: Miguel at November 26, 2006 10:57 PM
It wouldn't have to be military, though I think learning to fight in defense of your civilization is a virtue to itself. Indeed, it's the basic quality of a gentleman.
That said, I had occasion to meet with many members of FDR's CCC back in the days when I was doing my Master's in history. That organization, run by the army but for purely civilian purposes, seemed to have a lot of the benefits to the nation of the military, in terms of training the young. A real CCC, with the military-style structure and devotion to repairing and upgrading the nation's infrastructure while training young men in trades, would be a value to the country.
Posted by: Grim at November 26, 2006 11:12 PM
I may have missed the information on the Heritage Foundation site linked, but is there any information on the following?:
1. The distribution of these quintiles among certain military roles (I believe they do address race and the roles favored by certain ethnic groups.)
&
2. Sort of a reverse look at the statistics: how many of each quintile is comprised of military recruits.
If information on either or both is there, just let me know. I had a hard time finding either.
Posted by: Matt at November 30, 2006 05:17 AM
"A real CCC, with the military-style structure and devotion to repairing and upgrading the nation's infrastructure while training young men in trades, would be a value to the country." - Grim(beorn)
Are you sayin' that you want to put Union guys out of work with conscript government labor, or do you want the government, in the guise of the "CCC", to recruit for Labor Unions??
Just axin'. It has to be one or the other.
Posted by: Don Brouhaha at November 30, 2006 10:24 AM
Not conscript labor, Don -- the CCC was voluntary.
What I'd like it to replace is a lot of welfare/training programs that currently exist, as well as a number of jobs that the gov't is currently funding anyway (e.g., in the Park Service for trail/backcountry maintenance; in rebuilding ports; establishing highways; and so forth). I can accept some attrition to the unions, but I think the two groups that would suffer most are (a) public-sector unions, for which I have no use, and (b) other government employees, who currently get salaries and benefits.
By using young men instead, we don't have to pay out the long term benefits, which are a budget buster. Instead, we teach them a trade, so they can go out and earn their own benefits and savings in later life.
Posted by: Grim at November 30, 2006 11:31 AM
Mmmmm.
In the new,improved version of 'Federal' service, would these young men be 'volunteers'? Is this VISTA or AmeriCorps, or what?
I'm sorry, but I just don't get it. People who are not making it in this economy anyways, get to "join" a 21st century CCC, with 'military' style discipline and organization, and frankly you indicate, will supplant organized labor jobs, including jobs that the Feds bid out to private contractors and are paid the 'prevailing' wage. And construction unions or AFSCME WON'T recruit these people? Who is going to push this through Congress? Democrats won't push it because it cuts into their base (AFSCME and the like), and Republicans won't push it because these young men will be avidly recruited by the same, on the government nickel.
Like I said, I don't get it. I can see the merits on one hand, but this would be like puching a noodle uphill.
Posted by: Don Brouhaha at November 30, 2006 11:44 AM