Granted this is just anecedotal, but I can tell you from my service that almost everyone I served with was from a lower-middle class background. I know there are academic studies that show pretty much the same thing, and I'll try to dig them up in the next day or three. But the military is absolutely *not* representative of the population as a whole.
For example, during the Gulf War over 50 percent of front-line troops were black. Overall, over 30 percent of enlisted personnel are African-American, while they are only 10% of the US population. That's what a 2-2 1/2 x over-representation by Blacks in the military?
You are correct in mentioning the military being a way to advance one's status, because overall 12 percent of officers are people of color. But that's no where near the 30% rate of the enlisted ranks. Officers- closer to the general population; enlisted - not so much.
And according to a news report I read on one of the peace and freedom sites I was visiting a few months ago, when recent studies showed a slight dip in young African-Americans' (disproportionately high) interest in the military, the Pentagon reacted with a new ad campaign targeting blacks.
They're also targeting Latino youth with special Spanish-language ads.
This is a good resource -http://www.veteransforpeace.org/speakers.htm#
I wish I could post a few more academic sources, but I don't have time to search for detailed
I most likely overspoke when I said eliminate the standing army. I do believe that we should have a corps of professional soldiers that can serve as the backbone of the military. But I think our current military is way too large.
If it were smaller, then I doubt you see fools thinking that they can engage it on wars of choice for dubious means. We have the most advanced military of any nation. I do not think that any country could stand up to us in a war. And unfortunately, that can lead us into acting in an arrogant and ill-thought out manner.
A smaller military means that we would be limited in only acting in defense or in unision with our allies in matters that concern the UN.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Re: my initial <point> was the whole fraud for war thing...
Date: 2006-07-06 02:18 am (UTC)For example, during the Gulf War over 50 percent of front-line troops were black. Overall, over 30 percent of enlisted personnel are African-American, while they are only 10% of the US population. That's what a 2-2 1/2 x over-representation by Blacks in the military?
You are correct in mentioning the military being a way to advance one's status, because overall 12 percent of officers are people of color. But that's no where near the 30% rate of the enlisted ranks. Officers- closer to the general population; enlisted - not so much.
And according to a news report I read on one of the peace and freedom sites I was visiting a few months ago, when recent studies showed a slight dip in young African-Americans' (disproportionately high) interest in the military, the Pentagon reacted with a new ad campaign targeting blacks.
They're also targeting Latino youth with special Spanish-language ads.
This is a good resource -http://www.veteransforpeace.org/speakers.htm#
I wish I could post a few more academic sources, but I don't have time to search for detailed
I most likely overspoke when I said eliminate the standing army. I do believe that we should have a corps of professional soldiers that can serve as the backbone of the military. But I think our current military is way too large.
If it were smaller, then I doubt you see fools thinking that they can engage it on wars of choice for dubious means. We have the most advanced military of any nation. I do not think that any country could stand up to us in a war. And unfortunately, that can lead us into acting in an arrogant and ill-thought out manner.
A smaller military means that we would be limited in only acting in defense or in unision with our allies in matters that concern the UN.
But like you said, thank god for Portugal...