Graveyard of Empires

[Big RR]

Well that says it all; let's sacrifice the lives of our fellow countrymen on the altar of training--no other reason needed.

Is not dead racists a good thing? Well, most of those killed are white southerners, aka racist. I know that blacks make up a disproportionate share of the military, but in combat arms, the people whose job is to engage the enemy, blacks are a small minority. So, see, the people that matter are not at serious risk. And if we ever have a real war, that combat experience would be invaluable.

I wasn’t speaking from my perspective but that of the typical liberal. You remember channeling, don’t you?

[MajGenl.Meade]

You remember channeling, don’t you?

Something to do with gerbils?

[liberty]

Well that says it all; let's sacrifice the lives of our fellow countrymen on the altar of training--no other reason needed.

Is not dead racists a good thing? Well, most of those killed are white southerners, aka racist. I know that blacks make up a disproportionate share of the military, but in combat arms, the people whose job is to engage the enemy, blacks are a small minority. So, see, the people that matter are not at serious risk. And if we ever have a real war, that combat experience would be invaluable.

I wasn’t speaking from my perspective but that of the typical liberal. You remember channeling, don’t you?

Sorry if you see it as an insult. But Blacks are underrepresented in combat arms. That is just the way it is. For some reason, they don’t volunteer in any significant numbers for combat, but whites do, especially white southerners, but I expect that to change.

You doubt my ability to channel; well, I was recognized by a qualified liberal on this site with that ability, so I am not giving it up.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Blacks are underrepresented in combat arms. That is just the way it is. For some reason, they don’t volunteer in any significant numbers for combat, but whites do, especially white southerners

Hey lib, how about backing up your bald statements with some numbers, not forgetting to cite sources?

The percentage of blacks as a portion of the entire US population is around 13.4 percent
The percentage of whites as a portion of the entire US population is a bit over 60 percent

1. Do you think those figures have anything at all to do with numbers in the US military?

2. You are correct that southerners are over-represented in the military when compared to their numbers as a percentage of the overall population. What is the percentage of southerners in combat roles vs those who are not? What is your source for this information?

3. Please provide comparative stats to demonstrate your assertion that blacks are under-represented in combat arms. You may be correct but prove it please.

4. When did soldiers start "volunteering" for combat? (I ask because my son was in an infantry regiment and did not once volunteer to fight. None of his comrades did. They were assigned to Afghanistan twice in combat roles)

I realize asking for backup to your claims is probably a waste of time but have a crack at it, eh?
Just for fun

[BoSoxGal]

liberty that’s some serious bullshit you are peddling here. You need to put up some reputable sources STAT or just shut the fuck up. Blacks make up a very high number of US military enlisted and while in historical times their access to combat roles was restricted, that has not been the case since Vietnam. Please put up the hard stats - from a reputable, cited source - that prove blacks are a ‘small minority’ of our combat serving military, or STFU. Seriously.

[liberty]

Blacks are underrepresented in combat arms. That is just the way it is. For some reason, they don’t volunteer in any significant numbers for combat, but whites do, especially white southerners

Hey lib, how about backing up your bald statements with some numbers, not forgetting to cite sources?

The percentage of blacks as a portion of the entire US population is around 13.4 percent
The percentage of whites as a portion of the entire US population is a bit over 60 percent

1. Do you think those figures have anything at all to do with numbers in the US military?

2. You are correct that southerners are over-represented in the military when compared to their numbers as a percentage of the overall population. What is the percentage of southerners in combat roles vs those who are not? What is your source for this information?

3. Please provide comparative stats to demonstrate your assertion that blacks are under-represented in combat arms. You may be correct but prove it please.

4. When did soldiers start "volunteering" for combat? (I ask because my son was in an infantry regiment and did not once volunteer to fight. None of his comrades did. They were assigned to Afghanistan twice in combat roles)

I realize asking for backup to your claims is probably a waste of time but have a crack at it, eh?
Just for fun

What you ask for is something I don‘t have a lot to spare, time. If I start this, it may take weeks or months. Are you that patient:

Yes he did.

Complete List of Army Enlisted MOS (thebalancecareers.com)

Infantry Branch

The backbone of the Army is the infantry. The infantry is the main combat force on the ground, and they are responsible for fighting enemy ground forces on land. All the jobs of the infantry MOS work together to defeat the enemy ground troops and continue the mission of capturing, destroying, and repelling the enemy.
Recruits enlist under the Army's 11X - Infantry Enlistment Option, and will be designated as either MOS 11B, Infantryman, or MOS 11C, Indirect Fire Infantryman during training. The Infantry MOS includes the following classifications:

[liberty]

error

[liberty]

https://foreignpolicy.com/2014/09/18/do ... -commands/

Don’t blame my Army for the lack of black officers in combat commands
By Petronius Arbiter Best Defense guest columnist It is a well-known fact that the Army has struggled for decades trying to get more black officers to reach the highest ranks of the Army and especially the combat arms. This should be a surprise to no one. But don’t go blaming the Army for the inability ...
By Thomas E. Ricks
via Flickr/DoD
via Flickr/DoD
SEPTEMBER 18, 2014, 2:37 PM
By Petronius Arbiter

Best Defense guest columnist

It is a well-known fact that the Army has struggled for decades trying to get more black officers to reach the highest ranks of the Army and especially the combat arms. This should be a surprise to no one.

But don’t go blaming the Army for the inability to solve this issue. This is a multi-faceted problem and one which must be solved involving all aspects of American society: Army, academia, family, and community leadership.

You can support Foreign Policy by becoming a subscriber.

SUBSCRIBE TODAY

In trying to resolve this issue the Army has gone through excruciating efforts to recruit more black officers into the combat arms. The Army has not failed, but has not made much progress. Previously, while I was in a position to observe the branch assignments of one of the Army’s largest commissioning sources, it was apparent to me that there was little interest from the majority of minority men in going into the combat arms. In particular, black me were significantly underrepresented in the infantry, armor and field artillery branches. Correspondingly, the ADA, signal and logistics branches were overrepresented. As for explanations, none could be found.

In a previous life I was in a position to observe the intake of initial-entry soldiers into the Army. It became apparent rapidly that minorities of all types and black soldiers, in particular, were underrepresented in combat arms. We instituted an analysis of why and obtained no cogent results. Often we asked members of high-school academia how we could get more black men to enlist for the combat arms. They had no answer. We asked them why they thought young black men were not coming into the combat arms and their best guess, and only a guess, was that the community was sending them to where they could best obtain a skill transferrable to civilian life. Being a member of rifle squad, an M1 tank gunner, or a gunner on an M198 crew did not transfer well to civilian life, according to them.

The Military Leadership Diversity Commission (MLDC) (circa 2009-2011) was tasked to examine this issue. You would have thought that this commission, made up mostly of active and retired black flag officers, other minorities, and women, would have taken it on. They seemed much more concerned with the issue of how to make more women four-star flag officers. They addressed the issue, scrutinized it, but admitted they had no solution. They also acknowledged that despite a higher attrition rate on black junior officers in the Army, there was no institutional bias that could account for the higher attrition. The MLDC actually just left this issue hanging like a chad in an election and continued to pursue their main purpose; finding a way to make more women senior flag officers.

Now, if you think the Army is the only service with this issue, think again. The Marine Corps has a similar issue with its combat arms, and the Air Force and Navy have the same difficulty, but within their own organizational structure.

But the issue of a lack of black senior leaders is probably greatest in the U.S. Special Forces. It is rare to see a black NCO or officer in the U.S. Army’s Ranger Regiment. It is rarer to see them in the U.S. Army Special Forces. I can only remember one black senior officer in U.S. Army Special Forces at colonel or higher. There may have been more, but it is doubtful there have been many. I can’t speak to the SEAL community with any real credibility, but I would be willing to bet they have at least as great a void of black representation as do the Army’s Special Forces, and I would bet this is a similar area of concern for AFSOC and MARSOC.

As for solutions, I doubt there are many, if any, or the Army would have solved this 40 years ago. For sure, forced appointment to the combat arms of black junior officers will only be counterproductive. Such an action will probably result in dissatisfied officers who will either attrite themselves by going into another branch, the Acquisition Corps, or leave the Army — or even worse, be forced to leave the Army. Being a professional and good combat arms leader is a choosing and a calling, not a result of a draft.

Over the years I have observed that the opportunity for black officers who obtain the rank of colonel in the combat arms to make general officer is significantly higher than that of their peers. So, maybe the approach to be made by the Army should be: If you want to be a field marshal, go into the combat arms. However, it is doubtful that approach will be productive in terms of increased unit effectiveness or combat readiness.

My take on this is that the Army is just going to have to endure with whatever happens. It is highly doubtful anything can be done to produce more black or other minority officers in combat arms. And guess what? The same issue, but probably on a greater scale, is going to occur with women, should the decision be made to go that direction.

[MajGenl.Meade]

As expected, not one statistic appears. There are lots of numbers out there. Try this from 2018 which suggests several problems then which may be pertinent now:

https://www.statista.com/statistics/214 ... -military/

Black males under-represented in the entire military whereas black females over-represented. I would have thought you could at least have found that little gem! It doesn't take much more than minutes - let alone months.

I read your linked article. The point that blacks are under-represented in the highest ranks is accurate. But the matter of blacks "volunteering" for combat arms was stated as guess-work. Your article says it's a guess.

Racial diversity decreases at the upper echelons of the military. While the officer corps has similar levels of racial diversity as the general population, those with higher ranks—generals in the air force, army, and marine corps, and admirals in the coast guard and navy—are disproportionately white. There is an even greater ethnic disparity in the top ranks.

Source: Council on Foreign Relations - oh there's a wealth of actual data here
https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/demogr ... s-military

The reason you don't have hard data is that you never have it in the first place, only anecdotes.

[ex-khobar Andy]

Is it possible - and here I am speculating without evidence - that special forces are by their nature filled with testosterone-fuelled nitwits who do not take kindly to those types (women, Blacks, gays - you know the list) who do not share their world view? Don't get me wrong - sometimes you need and are thankful for these types. Exhibit A - I have little time for Winston Churchill's point of view on such subjects but I'm glad he was around during WW2. Unsurprisingly the UK public dumped him as PM in the 1945 election which might appear to be ingratitude but was more likely an acceptance of reality, which was that the world was a changed place in which relics like WSC had little further to offer.

It's a story as old as time, or at least as old as we have had organized militaries. I'm sure that the average Roman foot soldier went into the army because - well, it's a job, I'll see the world and with a bit of luck I'll still be alive and kicking at the end of my tour. They were probably not the ones who took pleasure in inscribing insults on their sling stones such as:

“Ouch!”

“For Pompey’s Backside!” (Pompey was an ex-general who led a rebellion against J Caesar in around 50 BC)

“Take this!”

“Be lodged well!”

“Fruit for Dessert!”

“This is a Hard Nut to Crack!”

“Here’s a sugar plum for you!”

[Bicycle Bill]

Nothing new there, ex-KA.  Kipling wrote on it over a hundred years ago in the poem, Tommy (1890)

For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an` "Chuck him out, the brute!"
But it's "Saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot;
An' it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' anything you please;
An 'Tommy ain't a bloomin' fool — you bet that Tommy sees!

-"BB"-

[BoSoxGal]

[Econoline]

From Charlie Pierce:

Let us now praise Rep. Barbara Lee. On September 14, 2001, three days after Al-Qaeda killed nearly 3,000 people in New York, Washington, and Shanksville, Pennsylvania, the House of Representatives was debating H.J. Res. 64, which would give President George W. Bush carte blanche to use military force in the newly “declared” war on terror. The first target, you may recall, was going to be Afghanistan. The House approved the resolution. The vote was one vote shy of unanimous. That vote was the one belonging to Barbara Lee, whom we now quote in full.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today with a heavy heart, one that is filled with sorrow for the families and loved ones who were killed and injured in New York, Virginia, and Pennsylvania. Only the most foolish or the most callous would not understand the grief that has gripped the American people and millions around the world.

This unspeakable attack on the United States has forced me to rely on my moral compass, my conscience, and my God for direction.

September 11 changed the world. Our deepest fears now haunt us. Yet I am convinced that military action will not prevent further acts of international terrorism against the United States. I know that this use-of-force resolution will pass although we all know that the President can wage war even without this resolution. However difficult this vote may be, some of us must urge the use of restraint. There must be some of us who say, let’s step back for a moment and think through the implications of our actions today—let us more fully understand their consequences.

We are not dealing with a conventional war. We cannot respond in a conventional manner. I do not want to see this spiral out of control. This crisis involves issues of national security, foreign policy, public safety, intelligence gathering, economics, and murder. Our response must be equally multifaceted.

We must not rush to judgment. For too many innocent people have already died. Our country is in mourning. If we rush to launch a counterattack, we run too great a risk that woman, children, and other non-combatants will be caught in the crossfire.

Nor can we let our justified anger over these outrageous acts by vicious murderers inflame prejudice against all Arab Americans, Muslim, Southeast Asians, and any other people because of their race, religion, or ethnicity.

Finally, we must be careful not to embark on an open-ended war with neither an exit strategy nor a focused target. We cannot repeat past mistakes.

In 1964, Congress gave President Lyndon Johnson the power to “take all necessary measures” to repel attacks and prevent further aggression. In so doing, this House abandoned its own constitutional responsibilities and launched our country into years of undeclared war in Vietnam. At this time, Senator Wayne Morse, one of the two lonely votes against the Tonkin Gulf Resolution, declared, “I believe that history will record that we have made a grave mistake in subverting and circumventing the Constitution of the United States. I believe that with the next century, future generations will look with dismay and great disappointment upon a Congress which is now about to make such a historic mistake.”

Senator Morse was correct, and I fear we make the same mistake today. And I fear the consequences. I have agonized over this vote. But I came to grips with it in the very painful yet beautiful memorial service today at the National Cathedral. As a member of the clergy so eloquently said, “As we act, let us not become the evil that we deplore.”

Over the past 10 days, we’ve seen a fairly vigorous effort to do everything except acknowledge the prescience of Barbara Lee’s warning of two decades ago. A lot of the same think-tank war heroes and retired brass hats that pitched the war in Afghanistan—and its blowback stepchild, the war in Iraq—have been all over television doing everything except acknowledging that Barbara Lee was right in 2001, more right than they were, with all their advanced degrees, ribbons, and medals. And she was sharp enough to remind them that a previous generation of their kind had made the same pronouncements with the same confidence that turned out to be bloody and wrong in exactly the same way. The apparently eternal Foreign Policy Establishment can always repeat past mistakes.

[BoSoxGal]

There are millions of Americans and millions more around the world who believed exactly as Barbara Lee believed as the invasion of Afghanistan was being considered in Congress. Not even two years later in February 2003, the looming invasion of Iraq compelled the largest protest in all of human history - between 6-11 million people worldwide took to the streets in over 650 cities.

It’s wonderful that at least one Congressperson had the courage to speak on the floor of the House against invading Afghanistan, and that a handful in Congress opposed the later invasion of Iraq. However tens of millions of Americans opposed both, and have known all along how this would end - many of us lived through Vietnam, after all.

One of my earliest childhood memories is of watching the fall of Saigon and the departure of the last Americans off the embassy roof on the nightly news on a little TV on top of our olive green refrigerator during dinner. I have a very clear memory of this; it spurred my later interest in Vietnam movies and books during my preteen and teen years, and that compelled me to yearn to visit the Vietnam memorial which my mother and I did shortly after it opened. That was a powerful experience I will never forget so long as I live. I remember all the controversy about the memorial’s design and the ethnic heritage of the young American college student who designed it - I find some hope in the way that very heated controversy eventually gave way to a deep love for the memorial, now one of the most visited in DC and one of the favorite memorials of the American people overall. Evidence that we grow and learn?

But my heart is heavy and certain that when the next opportunity presents itself, we will get mired again in a foolish war of our own making - because the vast majority of politicians just don’t listen to the wisdom of the people they represent.

[liberty]

As expected, not one statistic appears. There are lots of numbers out there. Try this from 2018 which suggests several problems then which may be pertinent now:

https://www.statista.com/statistics/214 ... -military/

Black males under-represented in the entire military whereas black females over-represented. I would have thought you could at least have found that little gem! It doesn't take much more than minutes - let alone months.

I read your linked article. The point that blacks are under-represented in the highest ranks is accurate. But the matter of blacks "volunteering" for combat arms was stated as guess-work. Your article says it's a guess.

Racial diversity decreases at the upper echelons of the military. While the officer corps has similar levels of racial diversity as the general population, those with higher ranks—generals in the air force, army, and marine corps, and admirals in the coast guard and navy—are disproportionately white. There is an even greater ethnic disparity in the top ranks.

Source: Council on Foreign Relations - oh there's a wealth of actual data here
https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/demogr ... s-military

The reason you don't have hard data is that you never have it in the first place, only anecdotes.

This guy is a civilian idiot. That is the way it should be; no one including women and minorities should make general without combat arms experience:

https://popularmilitary.com/army-combat ... diversity/

Venghaus said part of the problem is that the Army dips too heavily into combat arms to select its top leaders. For instance, the director of the Army staff and the G-1 are traditionally allotted to those with combat arms experience.

[Big RR]

because the vast majority of politicians just don’t listen to the wisdom of the people they represent.

True, but it is the people's fault as well, because they keep electing those non responsive politicians again and again. And even the ones that claim to be "different" change their tune when they are in power. One need only look at the list of politicians who voted to authorize w to go into Iraq and Afghanistan, they weren't all conservatives or republicans. It's amazing that Trump, by his stupid deal with the Taliban, did more to end the conflict in Afghanistan than Obama did. True, it wasn't intentional, but he still did more.

[liberty]

As expected, not one statistic appears. There are lots of numbers out there. Try this from 2018 which suggests several problems then which may be pertinent now:

https://www.statista.com/statistics/214 ... -military/

Black males under-represented in the entire military whereas black females over-represented. I would have thought you could at least have found that little gem! It doesn't take much more than minutes - let alone months.

I read your linked article. The point that blacks are under-represented in the highest ranks is accurate. But the matter of blacks "volunteering" for combat arms was stated as guess-work. Your article says it's a guess.

Racial diversity decreases at the upper echelons of the military. While the officer corps has similar levels of racial diversity as the general population, those with higher ranks—generals in the air force, army, and marine corps, and admirals in the coast guard and navy—are disproportionately white. There is an even greater ethnic disparity in the top ranks.

Source: Council on Foreign Relations - oh there's a wealth of actual data here
https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/demogr ... s-military

The reason you don't have hard data is that you never have it in the first place, only anecdotes.

Blacks are underrepresented in combat arms branches of the military; the question is why. Here is an army study on the subject. This stuff is hard to find. I suspect it is a liberal conspiracy to hide it. Anything that doesn’t make black men look like superman is racist in the liberal mind and hidden away.

Monograph Body (dtic.mil)

The Underrepresentation of African Americans in Army Combat Arms Branches A Monograph by MAJ Marlon A. Thomas United States Army School of Advanced Military Studies United States Army Command and General Staff College Fort Leavenworth, Kansas 2014-02

"Methodology
The purpose of this monograph is to answer the following questions: why is the
underrepresentation of African Americans in the US Army important? What are the potential
primary and secondary causes of this shortfall? This is a very complex issue and due to space
considerations, this research will only highlight issues that can serve as a starting point for the
Army to determine true causality. This monograph is simply reviewing data and identifying
correlation, and based on correlation, assigning causality based on historical information and
scholarly literature. These potential causes are not fact, and provide a starting point that, at the
very least, would allow the Army to identify what is not responsible for the causes of the
underrepresentation.
To answer the first question, this monograph will provi

[liberty]

As expected, not one statistic appears. There are lots of numbers out there. Try this from 2018 which suggests several problems then which may be pertinent now:

https://www.statista.com/statistics/214 ... -military/

Black males under-represented in the entire military whereas black females over-represented. I would have thought you could at least have found that little gem! It doesn't take much more than minutes - let alone months.

I read your linked article. The point that blacks are under-represented in the highest ranks is accurate. But the matter of blacks "volunteering" for combat arms was stated as guess-work. Your article says it's a guess.

Racial diversity decreases at the upper echelons of the military. While the officer corps has similar levels of racial diversity as the general population, those with higher ranks—generals in the air force, army, and marine corps, and admirals in the coast guard and navy—are disproportionately white. There is an even greater ethnic disparity in the top ranks.

Source: Council on Foreign Relations - oh there's a wealth of actual data here
https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/demogr ... s-military

The reason you don't have hard data is that you never have it in the first place, only anecdotes.

Blacks are underrepresented in combat arms branches of the military; the question is why. Here is an army study on the subject. This stuff is hard to find. I suspect it is a liberal conspiracy to hide it. Anything that doesn’t make black men look like superman is racist in the liberal mind and hidden away.

https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a614091.pdf

Monograph Body (dtic.mil)

The Underrepresentation of African Americans in Army Combat Arms Branches A Monograph by MAJ Marlon A. Thomas United States Army School of Advanced Military Studies United States Army Command and General Staff College Fort Leavenworth, Kansas 2014-02

[Burning Petard]

Just as a thought experiment, I would like to consider Liberty's assertion that "Blacks are underrepresented in combat arms"

We begin with an all=volunteer military force presently in the USofA. Within the Army, combat arms includes the infantry, and also the artillery, armored, and combat engineers. All of these have support services and personnel that once would have been considered essential, but non-combat. Such as the cooks and clerks at regimental headquarters. This is not so in our current state of non-symmetric combat that include RPGs and improvised explosive devices buried in the road that are powerful enough to lift an Abrams tank and flip it over. .

As a rational, cost/benefit study, I cannot see that the data supports a black man volunteering his life to support a society system that is rigged against him from birth.

In spite of that, there are still some who do. Their sense of honor exceeds mine or Liberty's.

snailgate

[Joe Guy]

What about Native Americans, Asians and Middle Easterners? Are they represented fairly in our military? What about non-binaries? Handicapped? Louisianans?