Middle-aged black men are much likelier to be veterans than anyone else

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

Random factoid for the day...

In 1973 the US Military was 28% African-American.

(The US population is about 14% AA.)

Today the US military is 16% AA.

(I knew that AA men were way over-represented in the draft but I wouldn't have guessed 28%. Big number.)


Figures from:

http://www.rand.org/publications/randreview/issues/fall2006/volunteer.html

[LiberalLoner]

1. And that's also part of the reason why we treat our vets shabbily. n/t

[happyslug]

2. The percentage of African Americans in the military INCREASED after 1970, peaking in 1979

The main reason was African Americans saw the Military as an opportunity to get an education beyond high school more then Middle Class whites of the same time period (1973-2000). Since 2000 the support for the wars in Iraq and Iran was been weakest in the African American Communities and as such enlistments have drop drastically from those areas since 2001. This is not so much a African American situation as enlistments from all groups from Urban areas have dropped. Among African Americans the enlistment ranks have dropped by almost 2/3rd since 1996. The US Army has compensated for this by enlisting a greater percentage of its recruits from rural areas (Predominately white).

Also remember the size of the Military was cut almost by a third during the Clinton administration. now this involved the NUMBER of people in the Military NOT the actual Defense Budget (Yes, the GOP controlled Congress under Clinton cut the number of enlistees but kept the money going to Defense Contractors). Many of the African-Americans in the US Military are senior enlisted ranks at the present time (i.e. Enlisted while before 2001 and first re-enlisted before 2001 and now waiting they time till they have their 20 years in and retire), thus every one expect the percentage to drop even more over the next few years.

Just pointing out that the percentage of African-Americans in the US Military INCREASED after 1973, but dropped after 2001 and is expected to drop even further over the next few years.

Reports of drop in African American enlistees:
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/10/07/military_sees_big_decline_in_black_enlistees/


http://www.prb.org/Articles/2005/ArmyRecruitmentGoalsEndangeredasPercentofAfricanAmericanEnlisteesDeclines.aspx

One last comment, the percentage of Blacks in the Military was only 10% in 1970, it went up by 1973 do to the slow switch to an all-volunteer army (1973 is for all practical purposes the first year of the All Volunteer Army). Thus the draft was less racist then the subsequent all-volunteer army (Through once drafted an African-American had a greater chance of ending up in the Infantry then a white man). Most African-Americans in the 1970s did what a lot of White males did in the 1960s, enlist so you could opt into another arm of the Army other then a Combat arm (Armor, Infantry or Artillery). The US Army main recruitment tools of the 1960s was to use the threat of the Draft to increase enlistments in the from of a Carrot and Stick policy (The Draft was the Stick, the option to opt out of the Combat Arms the Carrot, thus if you enlisted you could pick what you did for the Army, if you waited to be drafted the threat of the stick was used).

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

4. The link implies (but does not state) that '73 was the peak

"Race and ethnicity: In fiscal year 2002, African Americans were slightly overrepresented among new enlistees relative to the civilian population: 16 percent compared with 14 percent. However, this is considerably more equitable than was the 1973 level of 28 percent."

I assumed reading that that '73 was the most dramatic year for comparison, but maybe it was higher subsequently.

[happyslug]

9. 1979 was the peak, but stayed high till 2001

http://www.prb.org/Articles/2005/ArmyRecruitmentGoalsEndangeredasPercentofAfricanAmericanEnlisteesDeclines.aspx

The above article points out African American enlistments started to go down after 1979, but only dropped dramatically in the 1990s. While showing a slight drop in enlistments starting in the 1990s then fails to point out that under Clinton, African Americans had their best decade ever in the 1990s and thus the push to enlist slowly disappeared (at the same time the Military was also cutting back in enlistments so the incentive to enlist was also cut back).

While enlistments started to drop in 1996, the real drop did NOT start till 2001 and the start of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Article ignored what was happening in the African-American Community in the late 1990s (do to the fact it is an inconvenient fact) but tries to extend the drop since 2001 to 1996 and thus avoiding the issue that African-American (and most of the Urban population) oppose the war in Iraq and Afghanistan AND is showing their opposition by NOT enlisting.

[Captain Hilts]

14. Over the last 40 years, the military has been progressive while our society has been regressive.

That's one reason I was a Wesley Clark supporter.

[happyslug]

19. I read a report that the Military has gone much further right then the rest of the Country.

The report Basically pointed out that the attitude of the Officers in the Military moved further to the right then the country as a whole over the last 40 years. The reason for this is many but one of the chief reason is the end of the draft.

People tend to ignore what the ending of the draft did to the Military. First, many people facing the draft had a choice, stay an enlistee or try to become an officer. Many "draftee" opt to become officers. Now to be an "Officer" you have to "Volunteer". This was true even from 1942 till 1945 when the only way you could enter the military was to be Drafted (FDR wanted to avoid the issue of Draftees vs volunteers that arose during WWI so he pushed through Congress a bill making the only way to enter the US military was through the Draft, this remained the law from 1942 till 1945). Given that the only way enter the Military from 1942-1945 you had to be drafted, the only volunteer act possible was to become an officer. Thus, while it became rarer for a draftee to become an Officer in the Post war Era, it was still possible (And one way for recruiters to get people to enlist, i.e. promising to get them into Officer Candidate School id they enlist).

Thus one side affect of the draft was a broader range of Americans became officers (and NCOs), people who would NEVER have enlisted except for the draft. My chief Drill Sargent (1981, 8 years after the end of the Draft) had been drafted but stayed in for after he did his three years he grew to like it in the Military. He once told us that he would never have thought of a career in the Military before he was drafted, but they he was getting close to his 20 years in). My point is the draft forced liberal people into the Military who NEVER would have enlisted and once in many stayed. Once the draft was gone, such liberals were never exposed to the Military and thus never even thought of enlisting (or becoming officers), this opened up positions to people of a more right wing tendency and accelerated the movement to the Right of the Military over the last 40 years.

Now, the draft caused other problems, first was how to get people to enlist? The Army was the hardest hit and thus the most open to solutions AND do to how the Universal Military Service Act of 1947 was passed, the Army had NO restrictions as to the number of women in the Army.

Side note: The Air Force, Navy and Marines had restrictions as to who could a member of each service. The Army had no such restrictions by Statute but did so by Regulation. The reason for the difference had to do with the Army wanting to avoid the racial question, but given that the the National Guard was technically part of the Army and some Northern state was going to make a Black Officer an officer over White Troops in that Northern National Guard unit (something the South was rejecting) the only way Congress could avoid that issue was to make the Army exempt for any statutory restrictions. Thus similar restrictions to those imposed by Statute was imposed on the Army by Regulation. The affect of this was when the Draft ended and the Army had problems raising troops it did NOT have to go to congress to change the law, the Army could do so by regulation. This is what the Army did and instead of a limit of 2-4 % of its enlistees being female, the Army could permit up to 50% to be enlistees (In the 1970s up to 20% of the enlistees in the Army were female, even while banned from the Infantry, Artillery and Armor branches of the US Army).

This restriction on the Army by Regulation not statute meant the US Army could change its regulations WITHOUT going to Congress, and did so. This permitted the US Army to enlist many more women then the other services in the 1970s. This forced the Army to change other rules and regulations including the bunking of all members in a unit in the old WWII Barracks (Women were placed in a Separate barracks) and even redesigning the Army uniforms to accommodate women (when I went through Boot Camp, while I was in a Combat Arm and thus no Women, we had women on the base going through boot camp. In one orientation class the NCOs asked all the recruits present if the women had the insert for their boots, and complained that the Army had opt for the Insert instead of boots design for women. Women are built different then men, their center of gravity is much lower then men, that forces their back to be more curved when in flat feet and thus to make boots more comfortable for women their heels have to be about 1/2 inch higher then for a man. Thus the insert was to provide that additional 1/2 inch of lift needed by women in boots designed for men. I give this as an example of the Army having to adjust to the fact women were in the Military and thus that fact had to be addressed. Why were more women in? The draft had ended. Note this was occurring while the Army was going to the right. Why no right wing back lash at the above? The Officers needed personnel and women made up to 20% of that personnel in the 1970s and 1980s and to eliminate women meant that you would be undermanned by 20%, something all units tried to avoid.

Another thing I saw while in the National Guard was that the African-American NCOs and Officers were heads and shoulders above the White NCOs and Officers of the same rank. I notice this, while noticing the opposite was true of the National Guard, the white NCOs and Officers were head and shoulders above the African Americans of the same rank. Now, we have to remember as you go in any organization, you obey the people above you, and protect the people below you, but cut the throats of your equals (Thus better to get a promotion). A lot of African-Americans saw this and thus stayed in the NCO ranks (Less cut throat then officer ranks, stay your 20 and get out). As an NCO you had a good chance of making your 20 before having to "go up or out". Officers had a much greater chance of hitting the promotion wall of "Going up or out" and the infighting could be nasty and from what I heard most African-American Officers lost out in such fights (How much has this to do with West Point/Annapolis/ Arid Force Academy Graduates favoring other Academy Graduates is unknown to me, but it is a factor within the Military).

My point is that, while the Military has been more progressive as to African-Americans and Women since 1970s then the rest of the US, it has more to do with just getting people to enlist and working with the people who enlist then any real effort by the Military to be progressive. The real hard changes were done during the Draft, integration of all of the services AND the dropping of higher grade uniforms for Officers (Do more to the fear of snipers AND to keep costs down then any effort to eliminate the class difference between Officers and Enlistee ranks). The only big progressive change was the integration of Women into the Services, but that was more do to the end of the draft and the crisis caused by the ending of the draft then any really progressive act by the Military.

As to gays in the Military, I remember a 60 minute story from the early 1980s (if I remember the story right). A gay man had been drafted during Vietnam and marked on his induction papers he was a homosexual (remember he was drafted so technically he did NOT enlist but was inducted instead). After he had served his first hitch he re-enlisted and again marked he was a homosexual. He did this for about 18 years. When it came time for his final enlistment before his 20 years was in, the Army for the first time rejected his re-enlistment for he said he was a Homosexual. He never admitted to having a homosexual encounter while in the army (and thus did NOT violate the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the UCMJ for short) but always said he was a homosexual in any paperwork he had filled out (So the Army could NOT get him for lying). Worse, there is a Statute that restricts how the Military can kick someone out if he or she is within two years of retirement. The Army had nothing to court martial him over, for he had never admitting to violating the UCMJ nor was anyone making such a claim. The Army was trying to kick him out for being a Homosexual even while bring a homosexual had never been grounds to deny enlistment (again the 1947 act and its lack of language to the Army came into play, while the UCMJ made it illegal to commit a homosexual act, the 1947 only forbade enlistment of Homosexual into the Air Force, Navy and Marine Corp NOT the Army). Now by the time this happened Reagan was in and it was clear that the Military was well on its way to become even more right wing and thus the efforts to kick this man out before he had his 20 years in. Just an example of how far right the army had gone by 1982 from the late 1960s.

Another example of the trend to the Right can be seen in the the Defense Department Regulations that made it illegal for enlisted ranks to criticized the President or any one in the chain of Command. Under the Articles of War which covered the Army before the UCMJ was passed in 1954 that had been the law, but Congress in passing the UCMJ changed the law to cover only commissioned officers NOT enlisted ranks (There was nasty case at the end of WWII when a a draftee made several commits against FDR and was court marital over it, the COurt Martial was upheld on appeal, but no one ever liked it and thus the law was changed when the UCMJ was adopted). What the Army did under Bush jr was to extent the law that banned Officers from making comments to enlisted ranks by regulations. No one challenged that change but was followed by the Military (I believe it was unconstitutional, you can NOT undo by regulation what Congress has done).

Just comments that the Army has NOT been as progressive as the country as a whole over the last 40 years and where it has been progressive it was do to external forces (Congress in the form of don't ask, don't tell and women do to the end of the draft) or do to the fact who you had to deal with (The Africans-American NCOs in the Military for example).

[Captain Hilts]

20. We're not talking politics, we're talking policy. The military IS a progressive organization. nt

[happyslug]

21. My point is that the Military is progressive DESPITE its leadership

AS a whole the Military has been progressive NOT because it wanted to be progressive, but that it had to be to accommodate who it was recruiting AND Congress. The Military, on its own, was much more progressive in the period 1945-1970 then it was since 1970. At that time the Military did NOT have to be progressive, but do to how the leadership occurred (i.e. the draft and its affect) the Military officer corp was much more progressive in the 1960s then it was afterward.

Since 1970 where the military has been progressive has been do to outside forces (it who it could recruit and congress). In the 1950s and 1960s the Military was progressive NOT do to outside forces, but do to a desire to be a more effective force given the high quality of its enlisted personnel do to the draft. The two types of uniform (enlisted and officer) were for all practical purposes abolished. Enlisted barracks slowly were upgraded (but the WWII barracks stayed the norm for most enlistees during that period, the Officers quarters were NOT that much better). While the barracks stayed about the same (i.e. the WWII barracks), how they were used and what an enlistee could do during his free time increased during the 1950s and 1960s. This was all internally driven NOT by outside forces (most fathers of enlistees of the time of the draft had themselves served so the WWII barracks was viewed as good enough by most people at that time period). Influence from German military and the German tendency to give more command authority to enlisted personnel slowly took hold in the US Military (Replacing the pre-WWII attitude that the enlistee were NOT to be trusted for most pre-WWII enlistees were refugees from some Jail, this was do to the poor pay of army at that time period. WWII is actual a transition between these two attitude to the enlisted personnel with more and more authority being given to lower and lower ranks as the war went on and it was found to work).

Unlike the improvements in the Military from 1945-1970 , the improvements since 1970 tend to be do to outside forces, the need to get and keep enlistees, the need to appease congress etc. As a whole this has lead to a more progressive attitude by the Military, but it was NOT something that came out of the Military itself, but more as the result of outside forces. Some people may call that politics, but any change, good or bad, is always the result of Politics (Politics is the interaction of people so to work out HOW people work together, that is politics and ALL humans do it, even if we reserve the word politics to what happens in Washington). Thus even when the military is progressive it is and was the result of politics, even when the only political figures involved are military leaders. To paraphrase Clausewitz in his book "On War", when a country goes to war, how the war is fought and how it ends are all political decisions. When you hear the term "Excessive political interference with military operations" Clausewitz went on, was NOT a complaint of excessive political interference with the Military BUT a statement of disagreement of WHAT was the political objective of the military for everything the military does IS POLITICAL. Thus I have to disagree with you that we are NOT talking politics, for the Military is product of politics and whatever it does is political in nature. You may want to see the progressive parts of the US Military as NOT being the product of Politics, but it was, just like my statements as to the military downside especially starting with Reagan. You can NOT separate the military from the political system that it supports, that created the military and supports the military through taxes. The US Military is a political entity and will always be one and as such will ALWAYS follow the political situation what ever it is.

[nadinbrzezinski]

24. There is one factor that also explains the right ward lurch

and I did not see it in your excellent posts.

The Officer Corp, just like it was before the Draft, trends to be Southern and White.

Especially for ring knockers, and this could be (will be) a problem sooner or later.

[old mark]

3. Many of my Army NCO's were African Americans-1968-'71...

For many men with a desire to have long term steady employment and escape the places they were born, the Army was a very good soultion. Truman integrated the Army in the late 1940s despite much opposition, and it proved one of the best decisions of the era. The Army-followed by the other services-became THE place where Americans of color could actually be in positions of authority and many found satisfying lives in the military.

There were more black junior officers at that time as well, and some of them reached very high rank in the military, which was unheard of before.

The military or that period did right by a lot of people.

m

[Captain Hilts]

6. Actually, FDR had started integrating the military. They just didn't announce it. nt

[Captain Hilts]

5. Yes, rich, white kids didn't have to go. Poor kids and black kids did. nt

[Swede]

10. The hicks,the sp*cs and the n******s

as I heard it said somewhere.

[Captain Hilts]

11. And a lot of my friends and my brother. If you didn't go to college, you went to 'Nam. nt

[proteus_lives]

23. That was my dad.

Flunked/quit out of school, was in trouble with the law and very soon after that got the tap from Uncle Sam. Got to Vietnam just in time for the Tet Offensive.

[Captain Hilts]

7. They were over-represented in the infantry as well. More recently, they're LESS likely to be in

the infantry. More often, non-combat billets.

[doc03]

8. That was the draft black people, Hispanics and whites that

didn't have the money, IQ or desire to go to college.

[happyslug]

12. But this report is of the first year of a NON-Drafted Miltiary

NOT that of a Drafted Army. The last year of a full draft was 1970 (After 1970 you saw a slow switch to the all volunteer army of 1973) thus this report is NOT of a drafted army to an all volunteer army, but the all-volunteer army of 1973 with today's All volunteer army.

Your complaint of the draft may be correct, but most exemptions to the draft were gone by 1968 do to the massive opposition that if you were rich you could avoid the draft. Then Nixon became President and adopted the Lottery (More to get people to enlist do to fear of being drafted then to be fair while appearing to be fair).

[era veteran]

13. This unlucky vet remember the lottery quite well

The next few days not as much. There should be universal, no exemption, draft now either for military or public works.

[Captain Hilts]

15. I agree. nt

[happyslug]

17. I also agree, for if we had the Draft we be out of Iraq and Afghanistan

People tend to forget that as long as the Majority of Americans supported the War in Vietnam, the Draftee army we sent in did an excellent job. The US Army from 1964-1968 was the best army the US Army ever fielded. While today's army has more high school graduates then the army from 1964-1968 that is more do to a refusal to take in non-high school graduates since the 1970s then any increase in the intelligence of the recruits. Everyone today has more education then their parents did (And this has been true since the Civil War). One of the comparison between the Armies of WWI and WWII was that the WWI draftees overwhelming did NOT have a High School Diploma while the WWII draftees did graduate High School. Thus the difference in education is more a reflection of out society as a whole then any improvement in the quality of the recruits.

The problem with the Draftee army started in 1968, as the Majority of Americans came to oppose the war. With that opposition the Draftee army brought in with it that opposition and you saw a steady decline in Army (by 1973 it was hopelessly broke do to that fact the recruits had deteriorated that badly mostly do to the increased opposition to the war). To minimize this Nixon wanted to go to a mercenary army, one less affected by domestic politics (He called in an all Volunteer army but it is a mercenary army, one raised to fight for pay nothing else). The main advantage of such a Mercenary army is that opposition at home leads to a drop in enlistments (And over quality of the enlistees) but that opposition stays out of the Military and thus you still have an Army that can fight if ordered (Unlike a Universal Military Service Army that will only fight if the people want it to fight). Right wing propaganda says such an All-Volunteer army is superior for it recruits only people who want to fight. That is true as to who enlists, but against an Universal Military Service Army that is motivated (Such as the US army from 1964-1968) it will lose, for it lacks the same quality and quantity of personal (The draft not only brings into the Army the poor, but also the best and brightest who would NOT tend to enlist but once in tend to make the army more productive).

Thus a Universal Military Army is the best army if the Country is behind what such an Army is doing. On the other hand if the country ever opposes what the army does, it deteriorates rapidly. On the other hand Mercenary armies are never as good as a Universal Military Army (Provided the supplies and equipment are similar, you can NOT compare what the US Calvary did to the Indians when the US Calvary had modern weapons and cannons and the Indians had neither for example, when the equipment were similar the Native Americans defeated the Army such as the Little Big Horn and Fetterman's Massacre but other colonial wars often had machine guns against spears which is NOT a good test of the two types of armies), but Mercenary Armies retain an ability to fight, as long as they are paid, even as internal opposition to the war increases.

Just look at Vietnam and the present war. The US did well between 1964-1968 as the internal situation in Vietnam deteriorated. When the Majority of Americans opposed the war the US Army went into a tailspin and the US was out of the War by 1972 (for all practical purposes, no actual peace treaty till the beginning of 1973). That is a period of only four years of opposition to the War (Eight years overall but remember most Americans Supported the war till the middle of 1968). On the other hand we have been in Iraq and Afghanistan for longer then the overall time period of US Troops in Vietnam and during that whole time period the majority of Americans have opposed this war, but our mercenary army is still fighting it. This is the danger of a Mercenary Army, its ability to continue to fight as long as it is paid. A Universal Service Army will continue to fight even if its pay to reduced to zero for several years (such as the Viet Cong during the Vietnam war) as long as the majority of the people support it.

For BOTH reasons I support a universal Military Service Army, first it is hard to be used in a war that in unpopular at home, but it is also will stay effective if such support exists AND there is no money to pay for troops. Such an army would be useless in Iraq and Afghanistan, but our Mercenary army is NOT winning those wars either (In Iraq we ended up buying off the opposition, something we can't do in Afghanistan and the Mountain areas of Pakistan). It is still fighting for it is still being paid, but is this in the best interest of the US? The answer is no, we would be better off being kicked out like we were in Vietnam then continue to fight a war we can NOT win.

[proteus_lives]

22. +1

[doc03]

16. I agree you are right about the draft but the same is true

about the all volunteer Army of today. The son of a Wall Street CEO isn't going to enlist in the military. Unless you would have an across the board draft with no exceptions I suppose the military will always be that way.

[era veteran]

18. No exemptions