Too Many Whites, Men Leading the Military? [Archive]

Dusty

03-08-2011, 09:09

http://www.navytimes.com/news/2011/03/ap-military-report-too-many-whites-men-leading-military-030711/

WASHINGTON — The U.S. military is too white and too male at the top and needs to change recruiting and promotion policies and lift its ban on women in combat, an independent report for Congress said Monday.

Seventy-seven percent of senior officers in the active-duty military are white, while only 8 percent are black, 5 percent are Hispanic and 16 percent are women, the report by an independent panel said, quoting data from September 2008.

One barrier that keeps women from the highest ranks is their inability to serve in combat units. Promotion and job opportunities have favored those with battlefield leadership credentials.

The report ordered by Congress in 2009 calls for greater diversity in the military’s leadership so it will better reflect the racial, ethnic and gender mix in the armed forces and in American society.

Efforts over the years to develop a more equal opportunity military have increased the number of women and racial and ethnic minorities in the ranks of leadership. But, the report said, “despite undeniable successes ... the armed forces have not yet succeeded in developing a continuing stream of leaders who are as diverse as the nation they serve.”

“This problem will only become more acute as the racial, ethnic and cultural makeup of the United States continues to change,” said the report from the Military Leadership Diversity Commission, whose more than two dozen members included current and former military personnel as well as businessmen and other civilians.

Having military brass that better mirrors the nation can inspire future recruits and help create trust among the general population, the commission said.

Among recommendations is that the military eliminate policies that exclude women from combat units, phasing in additional career fields and units that they can be assigned to as long as they are qualified. A 1994 combat exclusion policy bans women from being assigned to ground combat units below the brigade level even though women have for years served in combat situations.

“If you look at today’s battlefield in Iraq and Afghanistan, it’s not like it was in the Cold War, when we had a defined battlefield,” retired Air Force Gen. Lester L. Lyles, the commission’s chairman, said in an interview. “Women serve — and they lead — military security, military police units, air defense units, intelligence units, all of which have to be right there with combat veterans in order to do the job appropriately.”

Because they are technically attached to, but not assigned to, combat units, they don’t get credit for being in combat arms, something important for promotion to the most senior ranks.

Lyles said the commission consulted a panel of enlisted women on the issue. “I didn’t hear, ‘Rah, rah, we want to be in combat,’“ Lyles said. “But I also didn’t hear, ‘We don’t want to be in combat.’ What they want is an equal opportunity to serve where their skills allow them to serve.”

Stretching the definition of diversity, the report also said the military must harness people with a greater range of skills and backgrounds in, for instance, cyber systems, languages and cultural knowledge to be able to operate in an era of new threats and to collaborate with international partners and others.

LongWire

03-08-2011, 09:18

Hell lets start just giving the shit away then just to make everything more fair. What ever happened to having to earn it?

mark46th

03-08-2011, 09:25

If Political Correctness/Diversity wasn't such a plague on this country, I would laugh at this. Whoever wrote this report should be on the front lines with a combat leader who has no leadership ability, but meets the polically correct, diversity based criteria. If that were to happen, there would be no follow up report because they and all around them would be dead within days if not minutes...

1stindoor

03-08-2011, 10:04

I think I have a solution.
1. For the next 12 months instruct ALL recruiting elements to only allow non-white males and females to enlist or recieve a commission.
2. All new personnel (i.e. non white males and females) will only be allowed to serve in Infantry units as 11 series Soldiers.
3. All graduates of BCT and IOBC will then go directly to Afghanistan and Iraq for a minimum of two years.

This should level the playing field and take the burden of responsibility off of the "white men."

FFS

Dusty

03-08-2011, 10:06

1stindoor

03-08-2011, 10:14

Let's take that another step and revive the draft; male whites excluded.

Hmmm....I like the way you think. Selective service requirement for all non white male citizens. No college loans or aid for anyone who did not fill out their paperwork.

delta6

03-08-2011, 11:18

Dusty

03-08-2011, 11:49

Let men be men and women be women and serve the purpose that we were created for.

I like that.:cool:

greenberetTFS

03-08-2011, 12:08

Texas_Shooter

03-08-2011, 12:58

They are just trying to push more affirmitive action on the military.

delta 6 was defiently right when he said this
The PC shit is destroying this country and it needs to go where all shit ends up, along with the Lib thinking politicians.

Sharkgator

03-08-2011, 13:16

What ever happened to hard work? What happened to days where you were reconizedfor doing your job and showing leadership skills? I am willing to give every one a fair shot but you need to earn it. This making everyone happy attitude is going to hurt the Army

Sigaba

03-08-2011, 13:40

FWIW, the MLDC's draft report was discussed in a previous PS.COM thread located here (http://professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=31862&).

The report itself is available here (http://mldc.whs.mil/download/documents/Final%20Report/MLDC_Final_Report.pdf). The report's executive summary is here (http://mldc.whs.mil/download/documents/Final%20Report/MLDC_Executive_Summary.pdf). The press release is here (http://mldc.whs.mil/download/documents/Press%20Releases/MLDC_Press_Release_for_Final_Report.pdf).

I truly wonder if Ms. Jelinek read any of the three carefully.

The Creepy One

03-08-2011, 13:42

Richard

03-08-2011, 13:56

RE Post #7 - I disagree.

Richard :munchin

Dusty

03-08-2011, 14:33

RE Post #7 - I disagree.

Richard :munchin

lol That's a shocker.:D

delta6

03-08-2011, 14:50

Post 14, why are you shocked about post 7.

Texas_Shooter

03-08-2011, 14:52

Post 14, why are you shocked about post 7.

Second his request. You can not just leave us hanging like that.

bluebb

03-08-2011, 15:26

Competent and professional!

Blue

bluebb

03-08-2011, 15:27

Originally Posted by delta6 View Post
Post 14, why are you shocked about post 7.

Because he is Richard :D

Blue

ZonieDiver

03-08-2011, 15:32

Post 14, why are you shocked about post 7.

He didn't say he was shocked; he said he disagreed.

I'm shocked that you might wonder why he might disagree.

delta6

03-08-2011, 15:37

Because he is Richard.

dennisw

03-08-2011, 15:41

Here's a link to the commissioners and the commission's staff

http://mldc.whs.mil/index.php/about/commissioners
http://mldc.whs.mil/index.php/about/staff
Attitudes Regarding Gender Policies

http://mldc.whs.mil/download/documents/Issue%20Papers/56_Women_in_Combat.pdf

Women in Combat Legislation and Policy, Perceptions, and the Current Operational Environment

Issue Paper #56 Page #3 November 2010

The U.S. military depends upon female servicemembers to satisfy military requirements. The performance of female servicemembers is frequently applauded, and is recognized with awards (McSally, 2007).6 Servicemembers and commanders returning from Iraq, when questioned about the assignment policy, consistently informed researchers that both male and female servicemembers had performed well during deployment. Nonetheless, challenges to the assignment policy and the prescribed roles of military women remain.

Those who argue against expanded roles for military women mention several issues. One issue is an expected negative effect upon cohesion and mission effectiveness. Neither research nor practical experience has supported this concern (Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services [DACOWITS], 2009; Harrell & Miller, 1997). Another argument is that women in combat impede mission effectiveness because they cannot handle the same equipment or tolerate the same physical stress as men. Indeed, women get the same training and must meet generally the same health standards and qualifications as men, although sometimes the physical requirements differ. For example, the Army Physical Fitness Test, which consists of push-ups, sit-ups, and a two-mile run, uses the same scale to score sit-ups for both genders, with an easier scale for females in push-ups and the run (APFT-standards.com, 2010). According to one female soldier,(looks like they did a lot of research) however, varying fitness expectations “automatically sets women soldiers apart and makes us appear less capable than men” (Ross, 2010). When it comes to arguments about carrying equipment or even wounded soldiers, some argue that inability may be more a function of size than gender, and that the capabilities of smaller men and larger women overlap. Ultimately, there is a lack of empirical data on female fitness and correlation with battle performance other than basic physical requirements by the Services.

A related contention suggests that women cannot deal with the emotional ramifications of combat as well as men (Cave, 2009). However, the limited published studies on gender differences in mental health impacts of combat exposure suggest the evidence is mixed; some research shows slightly more negative impacts for women but other research finds no gender differences (Street, Vogt, & Dutra, 2009). Further- more, DoD officials noted that initial studies of veterans with similar time outside secure bases in Iraq revealed increased mental health issues for males and females in nearly the same proportion (Cave, 2009). Taken together, the existing evidence does not support the claim that women are neces- sarily less equipped than men to handle the stress of combat.

Dusty

03-08-2011, 15:45

He didn't say he was shocked; he said he disagreed.

I'm shocked that you might wonder why he might disagree.

Because it's like disagreeing that the sun shines.

Pete

03-08-2011, 16:08

Second his request. You can not just leave us hanging like that.

Because scooterdude and delta6 the draft has been discussed on this board many times.

You two are failing to get a feel for the board and the long time posters. It's more like you're shooting your mouth off in a frat house.

Step up your game or you might be on the outside looking in.

Buffalobob

03-08-2011, 16:13

The draft never should have ended, these kids today have no clue about anything other than their Ipod/texting and wearing their jenns at the knees. Even if they hated the military the eyes and ears were opened to see what it takes to be a free country with respect for the flag and those that fought for it. Rank was earned along with respect after completing the required course not before, color/sex had no place in the line as we were all equal. The PC shit is destroying this country and it needs to go where all shit ends up, along with the Lib thinking politicians. Let men be men and women be women and serve the purpose that we were created for.

Well, I agree that military service or some service should be mandatory. And I agree that it would make people more aware of the price of freedom and more aware of the price of wars.

However, as I understand the current situation there are more kids wanting to get into special forces than special forces needs. The issue is first seen in infantry school which IIRC is 80+% white male. This is a video of my sons infantry school graduation.
http://www.youtube.com/user/Microcystis?feature=mhum#p/u/44/ZLMwqT81L0w

I do not know what part of the nation you grew up in where men and women and people of color or different languages and religions were treated equally according to what they earned but it certainly was not Alabama in the 1960's and 1970's and it certainly is still not in existence at the present time. I remember the days of Lester Maddox, Eugene Bull Connor or Robert Shelton and find no recollection of anything other than the good ole white boys having a good ole white boy time. In the end, old white men invoke the name of god to rationalize their oppression of others, especially women.

Sigaba

03-08-2011, 16:13

Here's a link to the commissioners and the commission's staff

http://mldc.whs.mil/index.php/about/commissioners
http://mldc.whs.mil/index.php/about/staff
Déjà vu all over again!<<LINK (http://professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showpost.php?p=369295&postcount=27)>> :p:Dhttp://mldc.whs.mil/download/documents/Issue%20Papers/56_Women_in_Combat.pdf

Women in Combat Legislation and Policy, Perceptions, and the Current Operational Environment

Issue Paper #56 Page #3 November 2010

The U.S. military depends upon female servicemembers to satisfy military requirements. The performance of female servicemembers is frequently applauded, and is recognized with awards (McSally, 2007).6 Servicemembers and commanders returning from Iraq, when questioned about the assignment policy, consistently informed researchers that both male and female servicemembers had performed well during deployment. Nonetheless, challenges to the assignment policy and the prescribed roles of military women remain.

Those who argue against expanded roles for military women mention several issues. One issue is an expected negative effect upon cohesion and mission effectiveness. Neither research nor practical experience has supported this concern (Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services [DACOWITS], 2009; Harrell & Miller, 1997). Another argument is that women in combat impede mission effectiveness because they cannot handle the same equipment or tolerate the same physical stress as men. Indeed, women get the same training and must meet generally the same health standards and qualifications as men, although sometimes the physical requirements differ. For example, the Army Physical Fitness Test, which consists of push-ups, sit-ups, and a two-mile run, uses the same scale to score sit-ups for both genders, with an easier scale for females in push-ups and the run (APFT-standards.com, 2010). According to one female soldier,(looks like they did a lot of research) however, varying fitness expectations “automatically sets women soldiers apart and makes us appear less capable than men” (Ross, 2010). You raise a good piont. When does anecdotal evidence become reliable? When it resonates with our experiences? When we agree with it? When we don't? Or does it entirely depend upon the credibility of the person offering it? Source is here (http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/15/womens-work/).Catherine Ross served in the Army Reserves for eight years. She deployed to Balad and Mosul in Iraq in 2003 and 2004 as a civil affairs sergeant with the 445th Civil Affairs Battalion, attached to 3rd Stryker Brigade Combat Team (SBCT), 2nd Infantry Division. She lives in Columbus, Ga., with her husband, an Army staff sergeant, and her 3-year-old daughter.

Sdiver

03-08-2011, 16:15

He didn't say he was shocked; he said he disagreed.

I'm shocked that you might wonder why he might disagree.

Because it's like disagreeing that the sun shines.

aka = Because he's Richard. :lifter

Although I do have to say ... (I can't believe I'm gong to say this :D) I agree with Richard, in the fact that he disagrees with post #7, to which I too disagree with delta6's post #7 ... but only the first few words ..... in so much as the draft ending.

IMO ... our military is stronger now-a-days, being an all volunteer military as opposed to having the draft in place. Those that want to serve, choose to do so, and in some ways, wants to be there.

:munchin

Peregrino

03-08-2011, 16:48

Those that want to serve, choose to do so, and in some ways, wants to be there.

:munchin

And therein lies the crux of the problem - the military reflects the makeup of those who chose to serve. The leadership reflects the makeup of those who chose to lead combat arms units. And that's how it should be. We have enough opportunities for herbivores in CS/CSS, we don't need them leading carnivores, nor do they need to be in charge of combat formations. And for the politically correct out there - combat is what the military exists for. Deter if possible, win when deterence inevitably fails.

dennisw

03-08-2011, 16:51

Increase the Pool of Eligible Candidates
Recent statistics from the Pentagon show that three out of four young people ages 17–24 are not eligible to enlist in the military (Gilroy, 2009). Many fail to meet entry requirements related to education, test scores, citizenship, health status, and past crim- inal history. Further, racial/ethnic minorities are less likely to meet eligibility require- ments than are non-Hispanic whites, and that gap is widening. This is a national secu- rity issue requiring the attention and collected effort of top public officials, such as the President, members of Congress, and State and local leaders, all of whom can turn the tide by developing and executing strong, united, action-oriented programs to improve eligibility among the youth population. Together, these officials and other stakeholders, such as DoD, the Department of Education, the Department of Health and Human Services, and the Department of Homeland Security, can and should improve educational and physical readiness among American youth and foster new interest in military service.

The above excerpt is one of the recommendations from the final report. I find it hard to believe that 3 out of 4 persons ages 17 - 24 are not eligible to enlist in the military. If the results of the commission are based upon faulty research, one has to question their conclusions.

It also appears that the folks doing this study have not reviewed the ongoing work of others.

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/features/is-the-idf-ready-for-women-in-combat-1.219239

Meanwhile, a group of determined, senior female officers continued to forge ahead. While the men were bogged down in the territories and in Lebanon, the head officers of the Women's Corps (the job title was recently changed to Advisor to the Chief of Staff on Women's Affairs, or Yohalan, in the Hebrew acronym) remained focused on the target. Brigadier Generals Orit Adato, Suzy Yogev, Devora Hasid and the current advisor, Brigadier General Yehudit Grisaro, all sought to further the integration of women as combat troops. "The general staff just couldn't keep track," one of the women admits today. "We carried out a revolution right under their noses." Only recently, a committee has been appointed, headed by Major General (res.) Yehuda Segev, to closely examine the matter of women's military service. Instead of the patchwork approach of the past decade, Segev is trying for the first time to formulate a clearly defined policy on the issue.

For those opposed to the move, this marks the first opportunity to present an orderly objection to the trend fostered by several advisors to the chief of staff on women's affairs. Last week the Segev Committee met for another session, its sixth to date. On the agenda was a presentation that had already aroused sharp reactions during previous showings at other military forums. It is a document authored by several reservist officers, most of them religious.

In the past, the arguments against women serving in combat positions focused on the point of view of the religious soldier, who felt that he was being forced into intimate proximity with women under immodest circumstances. This time round, the arguments are much more sophisticated. The authors of the presentation collected material from a large array of sources, in Israel and abroad, that cast doubt on the usefulness of integrating women into combat. Bottom line, it's a blunt and learned attack on the sacred axioms of political correctness.

In the past, the IDF considered the armies of the United States and Britain as role models. But, in recent years, the policy of accepting women to combat roles has been receding in both these militaries. Thus, a 2002 report from the British Ministry of Defense notes that the army acknowledges that women may constitute a risk to effectiveness in battle. American law prohibits the integration of women in combat or combat support units below the brigade level. In 2002, the U.S. canceled combined basic training for men and women.

Other arguments against integration: The difficulty women have in carrying out the demanding physical tasks - the foremost of which is carrying heavy weights; the high frequency of injuries among female fighters (especially stress fractures); the modification of criteria in IDF units for the purpose of integrating more women; the introduction of sexual tension into combat frameworks; and the adverse effect on a unit's operational performance when put to the real test. So far, though, the evidence does not add up to a very weighty argument. There is just a collection of claims about poor performance or anxiety exhibited by female officers and soldiers during fighting in Gaza and Lebanon.

The central argument advanced by opponents is more interesting. The policy of the Yohalan, they say, was adopted without an orderly thought process or analysis. First the arrow was shot and then the target was marked around it. The IDF did not conduct an in-depth examination of what was happening in other armies or of the move's potential effects. Nor do the authors of the presentation shy from embarking on what might be called a witch hunt. They cite a number of statements by academic researchers who participated in studies initiated by the Yohalan. Some of these scholars have signed petitions supporting refusal to serve and opposing the war in Lebanon. The authors' conclusion: A "radical feminist" faction overtook military thought regarding the integration of female fighters, without the general staff's knowledge.

Déjà vu all over again!<<LINK>>

Sorry about the duplication. :eek:

Sigaba

03-08-2011, 16:54

And therein lies the crux of the problem - the military reflects the makeup of those who chose to serve. The leadership reflects the makeup of those who chose to lead combat arms units. And that's how it should be. We have enough opportunities for herbivores in CS/CSS, we don't need them leading carnivores, nor do they need to be in charge of combat formations. And for the politically correct out there - combat is what the military exists for. Deter if possible, win when deterrence inevitably fails.Is it possible that some of the carnivores would direct their energies in less self-destructive endeavors if there were unequivocal evidence that their careers in the armed forces would only be limited by the needs of the services and their individual abilities and motivation?

greenberetTFS

03-08-2011, 17:02

I'm rather surprised that Richard isn't for the draft..... :) He's a living example of a guy who was drafted (E1) and went on to becoming a Major..... :D He made it the hard way,he EARNED it......;)

Big Teddy :munchin

Richard

03-08-2011, 17:09

As I said, I disagree with Post #7...because...

The draft never should have ended,

I was drafted and saw what the Draft was doing at that time – which wasn’t much but retard the military's forward movement as it began to drastically reduce its size IAW the needs of national strategic policy. IMO – as well as the opinions of many others at all levels of the military and legislative bodies - the Draft should have ended, and ending it led to a move away from the perception of the necessity for maintaining a draft with a larger and lesser capable military to the development of the professional volunteer force we’ve come to expect and depend upon to this day.

These kids today have no clue about anything other than their Ipod/texting and wearing their jenns {sic} at the knees.

IMO and based on my experiences, anybody who would make such a comment actually knows little of the kids of today beyond the hyperbolic micro-views seen in the daily news. Kids today are no different than the 'kids of today' at about any point in History - some are great, some are thugs, and the vast majority are somewhere in-between seeking their paths in life. But they're still kids who - as we eventually came to realize - need a steady dose of someone and something to believe in, and the maturity and experience to realize the amazing opportunities they have been presented once they are willing to accept their part in the process.

Even if they hated the military the eyes and ears were opened to see what it takes to be a free country with respect for the flag and those that fought for it.

I knew many fellow draftees who were quite patriotic and accepted being drafted to do their time for their country because their country had called, and the experience was so negative for them that when they got out they had a strong anti-military and anti-govt bias which they retain to this day; a loss of the respect that had been fostered by their families and communites while growing up.

The prevailing view of draftees (US) vs volunteers (RA) was that draftees were lower than whale feces lying on the bottom of the Marianas Trench and were treated - along with anyone who was NG - as such by those who were RA.

Rank was earned along with respect after completing the required course not before, color/sex had no place in the line as we were all equal.

I know a lot of the ‘old Army’ NCOs and Officers who were my mentors when I came in who would say otherwise and I also met many others who were poster child examples of the fallacy of such a statement – decentralized promotions fostering favoritism, blood stripes, overt and subtle prejudice both on and off post, it was all a part of how things were done in the military and which began to change significantly when the force began to modernize under the introduction of a centralized education and promotion system.

The PC shit is destroying this country and it needs to go where all shit ends up, along with the Lib thinking politicians.

Respect and consideration for others is seldom a bad thing – but going too far with it, as with anything, is…including the generally over-the-top levels of political correctness which makes for typically hyperbolic news broadcasts and political theater. And as far as ‘Lib thinking’ politicians go, I personally think they are a necessary part of our established political system to challenge the ‘Ultra-conservative thinking’ politicians who want to bring about laws like this:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/02/26/georgia-lawmakers-anti-abortion-proposal-punish-women-miscarriages/?intcmp=obnetwork

To me, ultralib - ultraconservative - lib - conservative - moderate - ya gotta have balance and ya gotta keep an eye on 'em all.

Let men be men and women be women and serve the purpose that we were created for.

By that statement, it would seem that you agree that ‘transgendered’ people should be allowed to be who they claim they truly are. And just what ‘purpose’ are men and women ‘created’ for? I have to say that it has been awhile since I've come across that good ol' barefoot, pregnant, and keepers of the hearth type of thinking outside of one fundi group or another's statements of faith.

However, YMMV...and so it goes...

Richard :munchin

Dusty

03-08-2011, 17:27

It's another Diversity thing.

http://www.diversitylane.com/images/samples/Diversity%20Lane_I%20dont%20like%20you_purple.jpg

Sarski

03-08-2011, 17:30

delta6

03-08-2011, 17:33

Pete, I'm not shooting off at the jaw and as far as a frat house - to old.
I was replying to a subject that I deemed contributed to the subject and thats how it is.

Pete

03-08-2011, 18:01

Pete, I'm not shooting off at the jaw and as far as a frat house - to old.
I was replying to a subject that I deemed contributed to the subject and thats how it is.

Read more post less for the next couple of weeks.

PSM

03-08-2011, 18:07

Next thing you know they will want to have male and female recruits going through basic training together, a kind of coed approach to basic. Or have I been out of the military so long and they already have this?

There, I fixed it for you. ;)

Pat

afchic

03-08-2011, 18:58

Let men be men and women be women and serve the purpose that we were created for.
Please enlighten us on what exactly that means.

PSM

03-08-2011, 19:03

Please enlighten us on what exactly that means.

With photographs, please. ;)

Pat

silentreader

03-08-2011, 19:11

I just watched G.I. Jane so now I'm an expert on this...

In all seriousness, as someone who is entering the Army in a matter of weeks, I am glad that I am entering an all-volunteer force. My pay will be better and, much more importantly, I will be surrounded by people who CHOSE to be there.

That being said, I do think that the draft has some degree of merit. It gives a much larger percentage a stake in war- even if that stake is just "I'm worried my cousin might get drafted."

As for the white men leading the Military... I'm all for a merit based approach to promotion as long as it really is merit based. It is my understanding that there is also a fair amount of politicking and luck involved in reaching the highest echelons of command- is it possible that whiteness and maleness plays a role in these non-merit based factors? I don't know, and I'm certainly in no position to say, but it's worth thinking about.

Requiem

03-08-2011, 20:11

Seventy-seven percent of senior officers in the active-duty military are white, while only 8 percent are black, 5 percent are Hispanic and 16 percent are women, the report by an independent panel said, quoting data from September 2008.

These numbers are hardly different than the private sector's according to a study by The Executive Leadership Council.*

Percentage of Fortune 100 Board seats held by:

White males: 71.53
Minority males: 11.40
Females: 17.06

Is it a stretch to compare board seats in Fortune 100 companies to senior officers in the military? Maybe, but I find the similarities interesting. It seems that the parallel numbers reflects society as a whole, and the military isn't necessarily behind the times.

Just my 0.02.

Susan

*source. (http://www.elcinfo.com/reports.php) edited to add: 2006 data.

Sigaba

03-09-2011, 00:03

Entire post.Dennis--

With respect--and no small sense of irony considering the role reversal here--are you focusing on the trees at the expense of the forest?

IMO, the report, as controversial as it may be, should be mined, not blasted.

MOO, the MLDC is trying to take a proactive approach to the inevitable demographic changes this nation will undergo. As the country starts to look--and sound--more and more like L.A., the armed forces, as political and military institutions will have to change with the times. If they don't, (at least) two things can happen. Civilians will impose their will on the armed forces. And/or, the armed forces will be increasingly removed from civil society and be unable to articulate sustainable policy preferences.

The latter happened to the army during the Gilded Age. A core group of reformers led by Emory Upton were, by and large, unwilling to reconcile their vision of how the army should be with the political realities of the day. As Russell F. Weigley put it in History of the United States Army (1967):By proposing a military policy that the country could not accept, Emory Upton helped ensure that the country would continue to limp along with virtually no military policy at all.**
Now, I'm not trying to downplay or gainsay those members of this BB who were (or know of someone else who was) burned by affirmative action policies in the past. Moreover, to the extent that I can as a civilian with no prior service, I empathize with the frequently-voiced concern that these kinds of "social experiments" may saddle units in the field with "that guy" (or "that gal") who is going to compromise unit cohesion and undermine operational effectiveness.

Yet, if the writing is on the wall, and some changes are inevitable, can the proactive approach the MLDC is recommending lead to better and best-case scenarios?

If not, there may end up being a third option. The Air Force starts to drone on and on about UAVs being able to do everything that a warrior can do. Given America's present day fascination with high-tech magic bullet solutions, is it difficult to imagine the USAF getting the money to prove their concepts?Is it a stretch to compare board seats in Fortune 100 companies to senior officers in the military?Absolutely not. Corporate America knows all about the formulation of sound strategy--with one for every division, department, and regional office.

__________________________________________________ ______
** The quote is on page 281.

akv

03-09-2011, 02:02

Sigaba,

It seems there is evidence both ways. I'm not sure what percent of the US military was for desegregation in 1948, though as folks have pointed out since then our military has grown in capacity and faced every challenge, in hindsight that issue proved to be a molehill. Even if we discount the cultural norms of the time, there were already numerous clear examples Black troops could fight alone or alongside fellow Americans. Instances going back to the Revolution, or the Civil War's 54th Massachusetts Regiment, the Tuskegee Airmen or Red Ball Express to name a few. It is unclear to me the MLDC's recent suggestions have a similar basis in proven fact.

At the same time instances such as the extensive PC epidemic in US society also manifests itself in the Army, for example in the case of that Ft. Hood dirtball Hassan, who set off Red Flags but it seems folks around him were scared to act. It does make sense our military must remain congruent with America as a whole, it must have been shocking for the Germans with their Prussian tradition to believe we would would sack General Patton for merely slapping a soldier, or for AQ to believe we would fire the skipper of the USS Enterprise for some sophomoric videos, but that is who we are. We will also put all sorts of assets at risk to rescue a single downed pilot, and that is who we are too. When times are tough people lean on who they are, and we should be proud of this.

I certainly agree there is a growing separation between the experience of our military and civilians, we must find some way to address this. Our military already has a tough dangerous job in a cold world. The price of folly for folks in harms way is paid in blood. Perhaps I am jaded by my CAL experience but forced affirmative action is degrading to all parties involved, and the stakes were not nearly as high.

We have a motivated all volunteer professional military, change is inevitable and constant, one could make the argument the military due to the harsher nature of their environment is already forced to evolve faster on their own, than the civilian sector (desegregation for example). General McChrystal's dynamic systems based warfare strategy is another example. It is unclear to me if or how pro-active social experiments based on race or gender benefit or hinder this equation given the mission of our military, or specifically effect the unit cohesion folks in the combat arms reference often. I don't know the answer for this question, but I do know the penalty for failure in this example trumps a mere pink slip.

My religious friends might cite " the road to hell is paved with good intentions". The MLDC might well have the best of intent but once again unless they have a palantir, it is unclear to me what specific foresight or predictive wisdom beyond utopian hopes guides their process and plan, or even how such a process is even executed, or how in any way this is superior to an all volunteer force in a free country developing the situation as the environment plays out?

dennisw

03-09-2011, 11:35

Sigaba said in part:

Dennis--

With respect--and no small sense of irony considering the role reversal here--are you focusing on the trees at the expense of the forest?

IMO, the report, as controversial as it may be, should be mined, not blasted......the armed forces will be increasingly removed from civil society and be unable to articulate sustainable policy preferences

My first reaction to this report is, if it (the military) ain’t broke why fix it. Right now our military is not only a viable and dynamic entity, but probably recognized as the most dominate in the World. Additionally, it’s probably the most trusted government agency in the nation. If these two assertions are correct, why mess with it?

However, you mentioned that if changes are not made, ......the armed forces will be increasingly removed from civil society .“ Apparently there are enough Americans that believe that this is a problem. I would contend that our military is already removed from civil society and this removal has nothing to do with diversity. For example, when my oldest came back from Iraq for his two week R&R, he was out in the front yard in his BDU’s. The neighborhood kids started gathering around like they were looking at a snow leopard at the LA Zoo. Of all the folks I know, either through personal friendships or business acquaintances, I know of no other families who sons are actively serving in the combat arms. I would contend that an estrangement has already taken place and I’m not sure diversity policies will change anything.

I don't believe the primary issue involved is whether the report is being blasted or mined. The first issue, which must be evaluated, is whether or not the report and the conclusions are based upon valid research? I don’t believe that it is. As mentioned in a previous post, I believe some of their findings are skewed, if not completely wrong.

The recommendation below from the final report is probably the most controversial and the threshold focus is on combat arms. Why? My understanding is that they are upset that one of the criteria used in promotion evaluations is medals and decorations. Obviously, the chances of receiving a combat award or medal is greatly increased if the candidate is serving in a combat arms branch. It appears to me the impetus isn’t “Will allowing women to serve in combat arms branches make our armed forces more effective? “ It’s: How can the promotion process be more fair if we take into account awards and decorations while women cannot serve in combat arms branches?

It’s the tail wagging the dog.

http://mldc.whs.mil/download/documents/Issue%20Papers/56_Women_in_Combat.pdf

Eliminate Barriers to Career Advancement

Increasing the racial/ethnic and gender diversity of senior leadership requires eliminating barriers that disproportionately affect the advancement of racial/ethnic minorities and women. This can be done on two levels. First, the Services should ensure that all service members are equally well prepared to manage their own career progression. Related preparation steps include educating all service members about the promotion process early in their careers and mentoring them at all stages of the career process. Multiple occasions for preparation can help service members recognize career- enhancing opportunities and make choices that further their professional and personal goals.

Second, DoD and the Services must remove institutional barriers in order to open traditionally closed doors, especially those relating to assignments—both the initial career field assignment and subsequent assignments to key positions. An important step in this direction is that DoD and the Services eliminate combat exclusion policies for women, including removing barriers and inconsistencies, to create a level playing field for all service members who meet the qualifications.

An example of a structural barrier is the DoD policy that restricts women from serving in certain career fields or assignments that involve direct ground combat (Harrell & Miller, 1997). Although this policy is not intended to inhibit the advancement of women, it likely does so in practice because the combat-related career fields and assignments from which women are barred are considered to be career-enhancing.

I believe they have blurred their findings. I cannot think of anything that prevents minorities from serving in combat arms. Any restrictions therefore, must solely be related to women. Labeling this particular issue as one affecting both minorities and women is, in my mind, a red herring.

Also, in looking at both the commission members and the commission staff, I find that folks who have experience in being an enlisted infantry type are woefully absent. The only person who could be in this category is SGM Jack Tilley http://mldc.whs.mil/index.php/tilley who may not have an infantry background, but one in the armor. In my mind, this diminishes the credibility of this august body.

SouthernDZ

03-09-2011, 12:07

These numbers are hardly different than the private sector's according to a study by The Executive Leadership Council.*

Percentage of Fortune 100 Board seats held by:

White males: 71.53
Minority males: 11.40
Females: 17.06.

At the risk of being labeled "something-or-another-phobic" I'm afraid in a decade they'll be asking why more female bisexuals, hispanic gays, asian transgenders, etc. aren't among the military elite.

As a white, heterosexual male, and IAW DHS criteria a right-wing extremist (gun-owning-church-going-veteran), I sometimes feel like an endangered species.

Sigaba

03-09-2011, 12:58

1stindoor

03-09-2011, 13:22

At the risk of being labeled "something-or-another-phobic" I'm afraid in a decade they'll be asking why more female bisexuals, hispanic gays, asian transgenders, etc. aren't among the military elite.

As a white, heterosexual male, and IAW DHS criteria a right-wing extremist (gun-owning-church-going-veteran), I sometimes feel like an endangered species.

Yep...I've already been labeled a xenophobe...I had to laugh...like there's anything to fear about people in marching bands. hahahahahahahaha

wet dog

03-09-2011, 13:44

These numbers are hardly different than the private sector's according to a study by The Executive Leadership Council.*

Percentage of Fortune 100 Board seats held by:

White males: 71.53
Minority males: 11.40
Females: 17.06

And to think the military is just another "cross-section" of the American culture.

Well put Susan.

The Reaper

03-09-2011, 14:06

1stindoor

03-09-2011, 14:21

I would submit that we are straying off mission into dangerous territory.
TR

Straying?...If only that were the case. I'm afraid we're completely off course and getting further away from our intended objective. It's like only being a couple of degrees off on land nav...it's not noticeable on the short points...but we've been moving off compass for quite awhile.

ArmyStrong

03-09-2011, 14:35

Should the U.S. military be a meritocracy with a mission statement to fight and win the nation's wars, or an institute for social experimentation and diversity?

I would submit that we are straying off mission into dangerous territory.

I think it is easy to have opinions when you are not directly affected by the consequences.

TR

I couldn't agree more. I have never heard anyone say pro football teams should be more diverse, or that they should represent a cross-section of America. This is because nobody cares about the skin color of the guy under the helmet; they simply want their team to win. Sacrificing capability and effectiveness for the sake of "fairness" or "diversity" has no place in the military imo.

The sheepdogs have protected to flock so well that the sheep seem to have forgotten that wolves still have teeth. So rather than finding the biggest, baddest sheepdog possible, they are arguing over what color fur he has.

kgoerz

03-09-2011, 14:39

Once we elected a Black president bitching about racism became a thing of the past. I don't want to here any more news or about the black man being held down. How is the man holding you back now....no wait, the man is Black.

Sigaba

03-09-2011, 14:43

I couldn't agree more. I have never heard anyone say pro football teams should be more diverse, or that they should represent a cross-section of America. This is because nobody cares about the skin color of the guy under the helmet; they simply want their team to win. Sacrificing capability and effectiveness for the sake of "fairness" or "diversity" has no place in the military imo. Then why does the NFL feel there's a need for the Rooney rule?The sheepdogs have protected to flock so well that the sheep seem to have forgotten that wolves still have teeth. So rather than finding the biggest, baddest sheepdog possible, they are arguing over what color fur he has.IMO, this metaphor is highly problematic when applied to civil military relations.Once we elected a Black president bitching about racism became a thing of the past. I don't want to here any more news or about the black man being held down. How is the man holding you back now....no wait, the man is Black.I respectfully disagree with the proposition that American history has a "reset" button.

akv

03-09-2011, 14:56

I am hoping you'll elaborate on the distinction you make between "cultural norms" of the past differ and "the extensive PC epidemic in US society" of today. Was the integration of the armed services a by product of political correctness, the cultural norms of the day, or a rejection of one of the two?

By the "cultural norms", I merely meant to address the temptation to judge a period of history or foreign culture by our own current values. I admire the military prowess of Nathan Beford Forrest, or reading Thomas Jefferson, though I find other aspects of their existence barbaric, which I must temper with the knowledge they were men of a different time. There is a decent chance things I value now, may be distasteful to future generations as well. The notion of segregation seems utterly ridiculous too us now, however this was a prevalent facet of US culture in 1948. IMO, the integration of the armed forces wasn't spurred by either of the options you mentioned. To me it was a logical evolution in efficiency. America had just come through her greatest military challenge. The minority segments of our society had proven time and time again, they were capable of exemplary military service as well as co-existing with existing units in harms way. At this point why wouldn't you desegregate, you are increasing the efficiency of your force? As I mentioned perhaps the unique demands of the military force progressive evolution? Two soldiers one black and one white who fought as brothers in a foxhole to survive in Korea, probably figured out the folly of ethnic divisiveness decades before a gentrified white neighborhood came to the personal experience their new minority neighbors were just people, some good, some bad, most in the middle, all to be judged by their individual character.

As for my views on the PC epidemic, all you have is turn on the boob tube, IMO it divides us even further. If you have seen those hilarious Metro PCS commercials, it seems Indian American males have achieved something, since they have joined white males as the only safe demographic to target for ridicule etc. You can get away with a lot if it's funny, but would those same commercials fly poking fun at Black or Hispanic stereotypes? I see it in the corporate world in finance or real estate. I have a minority friend who owns a business who is considerably more aprehensive about firing a lazy incompetent minority female employee, over an inept white male, based on past experience. To me this type of thing deameans qualified minority candidates across professions and divides us even further. In contrast most competent diverse groups I have experienced operate with a shared mutual respect, but tease each other at every opportunity about curry, or swimming, frugality, or redneck tendencies, you are only in trouble if they don't tease you, and the group is unified against outsiders.

History isn't immune either, I took a Plains Indians course at Cal, fascinating stuff but they glossed over inter tribal warfare, I couldn't believe the PC revisionist notion the Indians sat around peacefully being one with nature and knitting baskets until we showed up. The Comanches as anyone who grew up in Texas knows were utterly hard, terrifying, magnificent warrior peoples. We did horrible things to them, what ironically they had been doing to other tribes. I would assume you and I agree the execution of forced affirmative action policies might have some benefits, but incur the blowback of stirring up divisiveness and resentment?

I read the MLDC, I agree with your assesment it is embryonic. I value diversity as well, as long as it a naturally product of evolution, not stifled, nor forced.
Sigaba you are a historian, I am just a guy who like history books, but it seems to me people in harms way gravitate towards natural leaders, and would gladly follow a purple midget if it was their best shot of getting their job done and getting home safe. In short, hopefully I have shared the basis for my distaste for the divisive blowback of affirmative action policies, and belief diversity is a valuable American trait, but cannot be forced?

Richard

03-09-2011, 15:02

Should the U.S. military be a meritocracy with a mission statement to fight and win the nation's wars, or an institute for social experimentation and diversity?

I would say the matter is not such a simple 'either-or' situation, and that the US military has always been a bit of both and will continue to be so in the future.

When we assumed the Soldier, we did not lay aside the Citizen.
- George Washington

And so it goes...

Richard :munchin

The Reaper

03-09-2011, 15:08

Why are females underrepresented in the NFL, NBA, NHL, and MLB?

Why aren't there more Asian head coaches?

Is that necessarily a bad thing?

TR

Roguish Lawyer

03-09-2011, 15:36

glebo

03-09-2011, 15:59

Hmmm....time for another of McNamaras 100K....???:confused::confused:

How'd that work out???:eek:

99meters

03-09-2011, 16:02

Why aren't there more Asian head coaches?TR

Because coaching is art not science.

Dozer523

03-09-2011, 16:07

Why are females underrepresented in the NFL, NBA, NHL, and MLB?TR Ratio of urinals to toilets in the locker room?

kgoerz

03-09-2011, 16:11

Why are females underrepresented in the NFL, NBA, NHL, and MLB?

Why aren't there more Asian head coaches?

Is that necessarily a bad thing?

TR

Because they can't drive...thats all I could come up with.

kgoerz

03-09-2011, 16:15

Then why does the NFL feel there's a need for the Rooney rule?IMO, this metaphor is highly problematic when applied to civil military relations.I respectfully disagree with the proposition that American history has a "reset" button.

Has nothing to do with History. I'm talking about now. Time for everyone to stop blaming others for their misfortune. No such thing as discrimination, good luck, bad luck anymore. It's about your actions causing you to be a victim of them.

Sigaba

03-09-2011, 16:22

Why aren't there more Asian head coaches?TRBecause coaching is art not science.Please do elaborate.Has nothing to do with History. I'm talking about now. Time for everyone to stop blaming others for their misfortune. No such thing as discrimination, good luck, bad luck anymore. It's about your actions causing you to be a victim of them.For this standard of evaluation to work, everyone would have stop referencing the past, including those

who decry the (allegedly) tarnished legacy of the founding fathers,
who lament the passing of the 'good old days,' and those
who blame the progressives for the political upheaval and restructuring of American society during the past several decades.

Pete

03-09-2011, 16:22

Hmmm....time for another of McNamaras 100K....???:confused::confused:

How'd that work out???:eek:

It is interesting if a person goggles McNamara's 100,000 the sites it turns up. Mostly appears to be the anit war crowd pissed at the 100,000 used as cannon fodder.

We're the ones who had to deal with the guys who found a home and loved it. Some we swear even made SGM.

Richard

03-09-2011, 16:26

Why are females underrepresented in the NFL, NBA, NHL, and MLB?
Why are males underrepresented in the LFL, IWFL, WNBA, UWHL, and AWBF? ;)

http://www.lflus.com/dallasdesire/

http://www.iwflsports.com/

http://www.wfafootball.com/

http://www.wnba.com/

http://www.uwhl.org/

http://www.awbf.org/

akv

03-09-2011, 16:31

Originally Posted by 99meters
Quote:
Why aren't there more Asian head coaches?TR

Because coaching is art not science.

Very possible, but how does this answer why there aren't more Asian head coaches?

Pete

03-09-2011, 16:41

Why are males underrepresented in the LFL, IWFL, WNBA, UWHL, and AWBF? .....

The difference is that many men could play female sports and beat a number of the women - so the women wil not let the men play.

But when one female can meet the minimum standards to play a man's sport the libs and MSM demand she be allowed to play.

Double standard - again.

trvlr

03-09-2011, 18:02

I don't think we can expect the outcry for the military to 'level all playing fields' until civilian America stops trying to level all playing fields.

Minorities get to pick their MOS just like the majority. In the information age, most young people can see that the top leadership positions are generally held by people from the maneuver branches. If it really mattered to them they would branch transfer or pick those branches from the start. It's really that simple.

Granted, it's not as black and white as do well and you'll be rewarded well, but we do need to move on from the 60s and 70s. As a black male, I feel like blacks get away with far more due to leaders' (cultural?) fear of making corrections on them. IMO The sooner we move to strictly performance based promotions, the better off minorities will be. The rule should be, put out or get out. Anything else promotes at best mediocrity, and at worst substandard performance.

PedOncoDoc

03-09-2011, 18:06

Is it possible that that the top quality, motivated minorities are preferentially going into non-military careers, and have no shortage of college scholarships and special interest groups looking out for them?

This could explain the lack of qualified candidates for leadership positions in the military.... :munchin

akv

03-09-2011, 18:37

Is it possible that that the top quality, motivated minorities are preferentially going into non-military careers, and have no shortage of college scholarships and special interest groups looking out for them?

With the caveats quality is subjective and going to a good school, simply means one went to a good school. IIRC Kaplan wrote a piece a while back about the sole Stanford senior in a graduating class going military, in contrast to a much larger percentage of elite school kids in decades past. This would seem to be the case regardless of ethnicity, which I believe was evidence to him of the growing detachment between the civilian and military sectors.

Sigaba

03-09-2011, 19:35

Is it possible that that the top quality, motivated minorities are preferentially going into non-military careers, and have no shortage of college scholarships and special interest groups looking out for them?

This could explain the lack of qualified candidates for leadership positions in the military.... :munchinIMO, the MLDC is focused on this possibility and its report seeks to address it.

The Reaper

03-09-2011, 21:47

Most minorities entering the military opt for Combat Service or Combat Service Support specialties instead of Combat Arms.

The studies I have seen indicate that they do so because of the desire to learn a trade, or a skill with a civilian application. Nothing wrong with that and I appreciate their service. We need CS and CSS to enable us to do what we do.

Enlistees are offered the MOSes they are qualified for and that the Army needs. No one is press-ganged into service, though that is a common theme of the Libs. Officers state their preferences and the Army puts them in branches based on their desires and the needs of the service.

The current system, as noted, requires DA promotion and selection boards to meet minority goals (quotas), or to review their results to ensure that there is no one non-selected due to possible prejudice or discrimination.

Boards vote each file and select the required number of files (personnel) based on their scores.

If a minority file is found to have possible discrimination, the file is revoted. If the score makes the cut, the last file on the list is bumped off.

Short of picking quotas of people who are unqualified but who satisfy some sort of diversity requirement, that is about as equal opportunity as I can think up.

On the other hand, the system does tend to cause some resentment from the people who originally made the cut, but are subsequently bumped off.

I don't see the discrimination in the process, except against majority officers.

I have served over, with, and for black and Hispanic officers. Frankly, I don't see the difference, beyond their appearance. Some were good and some were not so good, just like any other group. Some even made General.

I served with females in joint assignments, staff jobs, and at schools. Again, some were good, and some were not. OTOH, I don't know any who could carry my ruck or do what I did as an Infantryman or a Special Forces soldier, and I don't claim to be anybody special.

I don't think we have a problem, but then again, I do not expect an AF General Officer who was a pilot for his career to get it either.

If it were up to me, I would make the promotion and selection boards neutral, with no names or photos, just alphanumeric identifiers. Unfortunately, that would probably result in less diversity.

I was not selected to be a General Officer, and I accept that. If I were a minority, would I have a gripe?

TR

abc_123

03-10-2011, 11:08

Now that we're changing DADT, I wonder if a future study will show that we have too many heterosexuals leading the military?

:confused:

stuW

03-10-2011, 15:03

Should the U.S. military be a meritocracy with a mission statement to fight and win the nation's wars, or an institute for social experimentation and diversity?

I think a key issue here is "nation's wars." How far can the fist travel from the body before it begins to become disconnected, and how would we define disconnected? Methods, processes, and policies would probably be core parts of that definition. Those buckets could very much be correlated with selection of the population serving, and could come into conflict with policies coming from the civilian leadership in extreme circumstances.

I'm not in love with preferential policies, but the alternative of a military so far out of touch with the population that it begins failing to effectively serve also concerns me.

Stuart

Pete

03-10-2011, 15:14

I think a key issue here is "nation's wars." How far can the fist travel from the body before it begins to become disconnected, and how would we define disconnected? Methods, processes, and policies would probably be core parts of that definition. Those buckets could very much be correlated with selection of the population serving, and could come into conflict with policies coming from the civilian leadership in extreme circumstances.

I'm not in love with preferential policies, but the alternative of a military so far out of touch with the population that it begins failing to effectively serve also concerns me.

Stuart

Ahhhhh, are you sure you're on the right thread? The military kinda' does what the civilian leders tell it to do. Are you suggesting we should have a draft that is proportional in blacks, whites, rich, poor and every other little group you can think of? Could a draft of that type even be workable?

Maybe a proportional draft of welfare folks? Or do you mean a heavyer reliance on quotas of the "right" people for promotion?

Sigaba

03-10-2011, 15:29

I think a key issue here is "nation's wars." How far can the fist travel from the body before it begins to become disconnected, and how would we define disconnected? Methods, processes, and policies would probably be core parts of that definition. Those buckets could very much be correlated with selection of the population serving, and could come into conflict with policies coming from the civilian leadership in extreme circumstances.

I'm not in love with preferential policies, but the alternative of a military so far out of touch with the population that it begins failing to effectively serve also concerns me.

StuartHa! You used passive verbal constructions and you split an infinitive. Political scientist!:p

As to the substance of your post, could you develop the point I've highlighted in lemon chiffon? I'm not sure what you mean.

FWIW, I disagree with the premise that the armed services can only stay in touch with the population by adopting preferential policies.

kgoerz

03-10-2011, 16:32

I served with females in joint assignments, staff jobs, and at schools. Again, some were good, and some were not. OTOH, I don't know any who could carry my ruck or do what I did as an Infantryman or a Special Forces soldier, and I don't claim to be anybody special.

You said you weren't going to talk about your time serving with Richard:D

Dragbag036

03-13-2011, 20:26

It's been some time since I visited PS.Com, and the first chance I get, I see the same old lame Black vs. White Male vs. Female crap. When will People wake up and see that most of us (Americans with a tan) don't give a frickin crap about this shit. Especially those of us who chose to be Combat Arms (Infantry). I say if I worked for it and deserve it, then don't hold it back for your fuckin friend or name on the list that you know CSM...black, white, or of Latin origin.

We as a Nation need to get off the same old race crap. And K...all of us don't use that BS about the man. All I can say is like my father the preacher taught me when I was a young lad...If the shoe fits, then wear it. That goes for all, whether you blame some dude who had nothing to do with you not getting the job you wanted because of his race, Or you are here reading this as a guest and you want to come into my beloved Army and preach that racism crap.

I don't want you, and don't need you. There are plenty of young men who want to join for GOD, Country, and family. Military is about the protection of this country and its freedoms. Realize that and know your place within its structure, and everyone just do YOUR job.

DB .00000000002 cents

JustaSupportGuy

03-14-2011, 04:59

Reading this article got me wound right up... damn I'm tired of these fools trying to fix something that isn't broken. Are were here to fight wars or make sure everyone gets a damn warm and fuzzy?:mad:

Right off the bat I noticed a sentence in this report that got my mind running, "Seventy-seven percent of senior officers in the active-duty military are white, while only 8 percent are black..."

I took the opportunity that was handed to me in ENG Composition class and ran with it. Our final essay due was a compare and contrast essay.

Here are some interesting facts that I found during my research:

13% of American population is African American and of that percent only 55% graduated high school. Only 45% of all African Americans that attend a 4 year college complete their degree.

These figures limit the pool of potential officers of the African American race on a large scale.

Then we also have to figure in the factor of disqualifying criminal records. 9% of African American males between the ages of 18-30 have either been to jail or prison, been on probation or parole.

Why is it so hard for Congress to understand the simple facts? With African Americans composing 24% of the active duty military, 8% is an accurate representation for qualified African American officers in the military.

It just baffles me how merit and qualification can take a back seat to race when lives and accomplishment of the mission is at stake. No way standards need to be changed to accommodate race, this should actually be a slap in the face to minorities! Your government thinks standards need to be lowered for you to succeed!:eek:

ps. I was advised by the Teachers Assistant that I should pick a less sensitive subject for my paper. I will not be changing the subject of my paper, I have stated only facts and never went in the direction of the paper being in any way, shape or form, racially charged. I'm curious to see the feedback I get when the teacher grades it. Worse case, she's an Affirmative Action supporter!:munchin

Dusty

03-14-2011, 05:32

It just baffles me how merit and qualification can take a back seat to race when lives and accomplishment of the mission is at stake. No way standards need to be changed to accommodate race, this should actually be a slap in the face to minorities!
You(r) government thinks standards need to be lowered for you to succeed!:eek:

Only the liberal half. The half that strives to keep control of the minority vote by oppressing them with these strategies.

You'd think minorities would have learned by now that Democrat methods just don't work.

It starts at home, where the parents fail to set a correct example, and in school, where the majority of educators fail to do their jobs. Their solution?

Dumb down the curricula.

Sigaba

03-14-2011, 10:45

Reading this article got me wound right up.Did you read the report or the executive summary of the report or just the article?

JustaSupportGuy

03-14-2011, 11:39

I only read the article as posted in the initial thread. That was enough to get me going though.

I do intend on investigating further into it and reading the actual report, just for my own personal knowledge.

I know the article covers all minorities and gender, but for time constraint purposes for my report I only reseached statisics for European-American and African-American which is the only reason I posted the stats I did.

If they (congress/liberals) actually pull this off and manage to lower standards to accomplish this, it will be a very sad day... one which I will begin to question my career in the military.

Good men will die, so incompetant men can lead.

trvlr

03-14-2011, 13:13

[...]one which I will begin to question my career in the military.

Good men will die, so incompetant men can lead.

Dangerous reasoning. Competent soldiers leave, because of an influx of incompetent soldiers, which then makes the ratio of competent to incompetent soldiers even smaller.

Would that make you part of the problem?

I'm not saying everyone should stay in past retirement or go 20 years, but if incompetence is your main gripe why give it more power?

Pete

03-14-2011, 13:25

Dangerous reasoning. Competent soldiers leave, because of an influx of incompetent soldiers, which then makes the ratio of competent to incompetent soldiers even smaller.

Would that make you part of the problem?

I'm not saying everyone should stay in past retirement or go 20 years, but if incompetence is your main gripe why give it more power?

The original thread and discussion is about senior leadership in the Army and positions of power given to someone based on what they are vs what they've done.

Your post does little in the way of the main point of this thread other than to slide a left handed cut at someone far down the food chain - as far as Army Leadership goes.

greenberetTFS

03-14-2011, 14:23

You said you weren't going to talk about your time serving with Richard:D

:D:D:D

Big Teddy

Marauder06

03-14-2011, 16:38

Reading this article ...

Your paper sounds interesting. Are you going to post it somewhere we can read it?

JustaSupportGuy

03-14-2011, 17:30

On here, likely not... I think the thread might oveload the site with critiques and crash it. These guys (QPs) are the masters of wording and grammar. After they are done with it I might volunteer to be sent back to 6th grade.:boohoo

Besides the fact, although it would be relevant to the thread I don't feel that this is the place to be posting college essays.

Educated opinions yes, essays no

GratefulCitizen

03-14-2011, 20:47

Seventy-seven percent of senior officers in the active-duty military are white, while only 8 percent are black, 5 percent are Hispanic and 16 percent are women, the report by an independent panel said, quoting data from September 2008.

Conditional probability strikes again.

The senior officers in 2008 probably started their careers in the late 80s or early 90s.
(Just a layman here, so someone please advise is the timeline is incorrect.)

Senior officers (2008) probably scored higher than others who didn't promote on the aptitude test they had to take back then (prior to commission).
Senior officers (2008) probably scored higher on their PT tests and other assorted tests back then, too.

Find out what the racial distribution was for officers actually commissioned ~20 years ago who scored in the top 5% compared to their peers.
That is the original "population" from which senior officers were eventually promoted.

Compare the racial distribution among the top 5% of performers relative to their peers back then with the racial distribution of senior officers in 2008.
That might tell you if there was something awry with the promoting system.

In order to change the distribution of the leadership in 20 years, the very best candidates among the preferred minority groups need to be attracted now.

CAVEAT
The numbers aren't meant to be exact, they're meant to make a point.

Distributions in senior military leadership cannot be compared to distributions in the general population, because senior officers aren't randomly selected from the general population.
They are carefully selected from a carefully screened group of volunteers from the general population.

Without knowing the distributions within that small group drawn from another small group, numerical comparisons are meaningless.
It is a base rate fallacy.

Scimitar

03-14-2011, 22:32

Didnt read through every post but did they look at the racial make-up of the country around the time our O6+ where siging on. Morons.

Race - Senior Offices - 1980 Demographic
White - 77 - 80
Black - 8 - 12
Hispanic - 5 - 6

Don't see a whole lot of issues here frankly.

S

Texas_Shooter

03-15-2011, 01:52

Has anybody looked at the race makeup of the U.S. Congress?

http://www.thisnation.com/congress-facts.html

It is for the 110th Session of Congress.
(Could not find the current Congressional Session)

1stindoor

03-15-2011, 06:46

Has anybody looked at the race makeup of the U.S. Congress?

http://www.thisnation.com/congress-facts.html

It is for the 110th Session of Congress.
(Could not find the current Congressional Session)

Now see...that is a well thought out and relevant addition to a thread. Good find.

scooter

03-16-2011, 17:41

Interesting....Since there aren't many men in women's studies, perhaps we need to mandate a quota system THERE to right the injustice of it. I'm sure that a total lack of desire has nothing to do with the lack of men in those programs, it's discrimination!

afchic

03-16-2011, 19:30

greenberetTFS

03-16-2011, 19:48

scooter

03-16-2011, 20:48

Please, in your infinite wisdom, explain to me how this in any way has any relevance to the topic at hand?

If you go to Broadsword's link on the effort to emplace title IX rules on math and science courses in higher education, you'll find this:

MIT biologist Nancy Hopkins, an effective leader of the science equity campaign (and a prominent accuser of Harvard president Lawrence Summers when he committed the solecism of suggesting that men and women might have different propensities and aptitudes), points to the hidden sexism of the obsessive and competitive work ethic of institutions like MIT. “It is a system,” Hopkins says, “where winning is everything, and women find it repulsive.”

along with some other gems. The premise of the article is that some sort of affirmative action or title IX like program may be needed to ensure that the fields of science and engineering are Diverse enough. My comment was a tongue and cheek barb at the idea of enforcing, not equal opportunity, but equal representation. The relative lack of minorities in the infantry and SOF isn't due to discriminitory practices but their individual choice on enlisting. The same likely goes for math and engineering, or (as my infinite wisdom suggested) why there aren't more men in women's studies. Trying to enforce a ratio of apples to oranges in ANY field where entry is largely based on individual choice is a bad idea.

Sigaba

03-16-2011, 20:55

My comment was a tongue and cheek barb at the idea of enforcing, not equal opportunity, but equal representation. The relative lack of minorities in the infantry and SOF isn't due to discriminatory practices but their individual choice on enlisting.It sounds like you agree with some of the MLDC's key recommendations.

scooter

03-16-2011, 20:58

It sounds like you agree with some of the MLDC's key recommendations.

Are you.... Hmmm. Baited ambush! Not going in there!

Texas_Shooter

03-16-2011, 22:02

There is a push now to apply Title IX to science and engineering because males dominate these fields, and this is supposedly a "problem" and supposedly because of sexism (Here is a link from a few years ago (http://www.american.com/archive/2008/march-april-magazine-contents/why-can2019t-a-woman-be-more-like-a-man)).

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. You can only do so much to get women to get into technical fields. I think it has to do with men are more technical orientated.

After two major waves of feminism, women still predominate—some*times overwhelmingly—in empathy-centered fields such as early-childhood education, social work, veterinary medicine, and psychology, while men are overrepresented in the “system*atizing” vocations such as car repair, oil drilling, and electrical engineering.

dennisw

03-16-2011, 23:12

It sounds like you agree with some of the MLDC's key recommendations.

Sigaba,

Maybe I'm being dense, but I don't see how Scooter's comments in any way are in agreement with the MLDC's key recommendations. As I read his comments, he is saying that those enlisted soldiers who are in combat arms are there because they made a choice to enlist in combat arms. Specifically, how would the MLDC's recommendations affect this situation?

The only exception to the above is that women are not allowed to be in combat arms. afchic - Some of the previous comments appeared to stirred a deep emotion. Do you believe women should be allowed in combat arms ?

As long as combat decorations are a promotion consideration, there's going to be this controversy.

Does anyone believe strongly that combat decorations should not be considered in the promotion evaluation? Does anyone believe women should be allowed in combat units?

Sigaba said:
And/or, the armed forces will be increasingly removed from civil society and be unable to articulate sustainable policy preferences.

The latter happened to the army during the Gilded Age. A core group of reformers led by Emory Upton were, by and large, unwilling to reconcile their vision of how the army should be with the political realities of the day. As Russell F. Weigley put it in History of the United States Army (1967):

stuw said:
I think a key issue here is "nation's wars." How far can the fist travel from the body before it begins to become disconnected, and how would we define disconnected? Methods, processes, and policies would probably be core parts of that definition. Those buckets could very much be correlated with selection of the population serving, and could come into conflict with policies coming from the civilian leadership in extreme circumstances.

I'm not in love with preferential policies, but the alternative of a military so far out of touch with the population that it begins failing to effectively serve also concerns me.

Both the above comments address a concern that our military is out of touch with mainstream America and that the cause is our current military policy. However Requiem points out in post# 41 that the numbers are consistent with percentages of Fortune 100 board seats.

So I have to ask, why do you believe the military is moving away from civil society?

When I attended both my sons' graduations from basic/infantry school I was immediately struck by the lack of minorities in the graduation units. Later at the post shopping center, I struck up a conversation with a black gentleman who was a retired sgm. I asked him, if what I just witnessed was an aberration? When I was in the 25th infantry, the amount of African American soldiers more closely represented the racial mix in society. He said you're right. Young black men are not enlisting in the combat arms. Assuming this gentleman knew what he was talking about, how will the MLDC's recommendations change this situation?

I personally think it's a mistake to allow women in combat arms. I believe it will destroy esprit de corp and diminish the effectiveness of our combat units, and I do not get a warm fuzzy feeling from reading the various reports issued by the MLDC that they have properly researched this issue before recommending a drastic change.

afchic

03-16-2011, 23:23

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. You can only do so much to get women to get into technical fields. I think it has to do with men are more technical orientated.

Probably has nothing to do with how children are raised, in expected gender roles. How many guys here can honestly say they didn't/don't have a problem with their sons playing with dolls or playing house?

Men and women are definitely different. Their physical makeup their psychological makeup etc, but I also feel there is a strong case for nurture vs nature. If roles were reversed when we were being raised, how does that equate to what we do in life, and in turn how we raise our kids.

There are cultures in which the women are the hunters and the men are the gatherers. That is what the gender roles in their societies dictate.

So maybe some of the reason for career choices etc are more a product of our upbringing and environment than DNA.

Texas_Shooter

03-16-2011, 23:30

Probably has nothing to do with how children are raised, in expected gender roles. How many guys here can honestly say they didn't/don't have a problem with their sons playing with dolls or playing house?

Men and women are definitely different. Their physical makeup their psychological makeup etc, but I also feel there is a strong case for nurture vs nature. If roles were reversed when we were being raised, how does that equate to what we do in life, and in turn how we raise our kids.

There are cultures in which the women are the hunters and the men are the gatherers. That is what the gender roles in their societies dictate.

So maybe some of the reason for career choices etc are more a product of our upbringing and environment than DNA.

Agree

dennisw

03-16-2011, 23:31

It's not all nuture vs nature.

Louann Brizendine, MD, author of The Female Brain, points out that gender differences start before birth: female brains are flushed in utero with estrogen hormones, while male brains are washed with testosterone.

http://www.columbiaconsult.com/pubs/v52_fall07.html

afchic

03-16-2011, 23:51

DennisW I come from a branch of the military where women are in combat arms. When I was in college women were not allowed to fly fighters, for all the typical reasons: they physically couldn't handle it ie pulling G's. It would destroy the espirit de corps of the unit, yada yada.

When I was a LT women were allowed in, and as it turns out in some cases were better than men in the cockpit due to mental acuity, hand eye coordination etc... I am of a year group where we very well might have our first female chief of staff, because now they can compete for promotion with the men.

I am in no way trying to state that flying a fighter is in the same realm as combat arms in the Army. I do not believe women should be allowed in just because they are women. I do not believe standards should be lowered in order for them to gain entrance. But if there are women out there that have what it takes.... Why not?

I was raised differently than most girls. I helped my dad rebuild the engine to his willy when I was 12. I learned how to cast before I was 5. If I didn't clean it I starved. I grew up playing tackle football with my older brother and his friends and 9 times out of 10 I beat the crap out of them. Some if them still bear the scars to this day.

My whole life has been spent in a "man's" world where I had to be twice as good as they were just to compete. It gives me a different perspective than most.

afchic

03-16-2011, 23:53

It's not all nuture vs nature.

http://www.columbiaconsult.com/pubs/v52_fall07.html

Never said it was. But if you were to put women in an environment where they had to fight for their survival or perish, I am sure environment would overrule those pesky hormones :)

1stindoor

03-17-2011, 06:17

Sigaba,

Maybe I'm being dense, but I don't see how Scooterdude's comments...

Two different people Dennis...Scooter AND Scooterdude.

1stindoor

03-17-2011, 06:22

... but I also feel there is a strong case for nurture vs nature...

I always found this line of reasoning devoid of logic for one simple reason, the child has no choice in the "nature" or the "nurture." All he/she can do is to rise above whatever genetic or environmental limitations were placed on them. Which of course then puts their offspring in the same position.

1stindoor

03-17-2011, 06:27

Never said it was. But if you were to put women in an environment where they had to fight for their survival or perish, I am sure environment would overrule those pesky hormones :)

I respectfully disagree. But I won't state my reasons in the open.

Richard

03-17-2011, 06:34

Experience has taught me that we should never assume people are going to behave as we expect them to.

Richard :munchin

The Reaper

03-17-2011, 06:58

I helped my dad rebuild the engine to his willy when I was 12.

Ahem.

I believe you mean Willys. :D

TR

frostfire

03-17-2011, 07:00

I think it is a combination of nature/nurture.

um...nature, nurture, then choice. Choice can and has overruled nature/nurture in many instances.
For example, afchic made her choice and has been grinding axe since then :D ;)

Dusty

03-17-2011, 07:13

Ahem.

I believe you mean Willys. :D

TR

He had more than one? Gives me willy envy.

akv

03-17-2011, 07:28

History has seen motivated women combatants from antiquity, through guerilla movements or major pitched battles like Stalingrad, a recent example was that gal who won a silver star in Iraq. I would defer to vets on unit cohesion, mission requirements etc. Though my divorced friends tell me their ex wives are every bit as predatory, ruthless, and dangerous as a lioness. I have always bought the Heinlein view, women have more range than men, the good ones are much better, and the bad ones much worse than men.

1stindoor

03-17-2011, 07:31

Ahem.

I believe you mean Willys. :D

TR

And there goes yet another perfectly good keyboard.

afchic

03-17-2011, 07:52

Ahem.

I believe you mean Willys. :D

TR
Well color me embarrassed. God I hate auto correct

Dusty

03-17-2011, 08:18

Experience has taught me that we should never assume people are going to behave as we expect them to.

Richard :munchin

Experience has taught me that liberals always behave as expected-as imbeciles.

This is just an example.

Sigaba

03-24-2011, 13:15

Dennisw--Maybe I'm being dense, but I don't see how Scooterdude's comments in any way are in agreement with the MLDC's key recommendations.I don't think you're being dense. I think the final report needed more scrubbing for editorial consistency and narrative cohesion. It reads too much like a document cobbled together from individual pieces written by subcommittees. This characteristic results in a report that is, at times, conflicting, even contradictory.

In any case, scooter's barb is, IMO, in agreement with many of the MLDC's recommendations because the MLDC wants to move beyond previous and existing policies that insist upon representation to policies that broaden opportunities for inclusion. By my reading, this desire is borne out by pages 13 and 14, especially Figure 2.1. in Appendix C, Recommendations

Recommendation 4 (b);
Recommendation 6 (c);
Recommendation 7;
Recommendation 8;
Recommendation 10;
Recommendation 13; and
Recommendation 16.

To me, the most important point of the report is the MLDC's belief that only by embracing broadly defined concept of "diversity" will the armed services remain viable political institutions in the digital century. Yes, the report can be read as a call to resuscitate/revitalize/strengthen affirmative action programs. However, I see the report more as a plan to enable the armed services to expand the ways to identify, to mentor, and to develop qualified individuals to have the opportunity to build careers defending the nation.
Both the above comments address a concern that our military is out of touch with mainstream America and that the cause is our current military policy.I think you may have misread my comment and Weigley's quote. During the Gilding Age, the widening gap between the army and "mainstream" America was due to the approach [I]some reformers took to reorganization and to modernization. They had a vision how how the army should look. They were unwilling to compromise that vision. This approach meant they'd not engage in political negotiations even though horse trading may have opened other opportunities for reform down the road. My concern is that certain trajectories of opposition to the MLDC's report (and other controversial issues, such as DADT) will lead the armed services--especially the army--down this path again. However Requiem points out in post# 41 that the numbers are consistent with percentages of Fortune 100 board seats.I think this comparison is not germane to the discussion of the MLDC's report for several reasons. First, the MLDC wants the leadership of the armed services to reflect more closely the demographic makeup of American society--not America's board rooms. Second, the comparison implies that corporate America is a meritocracy. This notion is highly debatable given the vast damage a number of large corporations (Time Warner and HP come to mind) have inflicted upon America with their "strategies." Third, I do not think that it helps the discussion of military affairs to compare the armed services to civil society. We civilians need to work harder to understand the men and women in the armed services in their own terms, not ours. (YMMV.)So I have to ask, why do you believe the military is moving away from civil society?I am inclined to think it is the other way around: civil society is doing most of the moving. In a nutshell, the 1970s and 1980s saw more and more discussion of military affairs taking place in political culture and mass popular culture. That is, instead of Americans getting information about war from warriors, they turned more and more to politicians, pundits, journalists, eggheads, and folks who work in the TMZ.

IMO, this dynamic is currently spiraling in directions that I find vindicating in a historiographical sense yet very disturbing as a citizen. I have seen evidence that the services themselves are giving things a bit of a push. And as a citizen, I'm immensely concerned that the push is becoming a bit more insistent.Assuming this gentleman knew what he was talking about, how will the MLDC's recommendations change this situation?By my reading, the recommendations will lead to a different types of outreached based upon a re imagining of what makes a warrior a warrior and where aspiring warriors can be found.

The key word in this re-imagining is "diversity." The MLDC defines diversity so broadly that it goes beyond the boundaries of race, ethnicity, and gender. [Which is why I continue to ask some members if they've read the report or just the news article. The diversity being criticized in this thread is only part of what the MLDC has in mind.]

The MLDC believes that the inculcation of diversity into the DoD's culture, will lead to a wider range of qualities to consider in addition to the established ones when it comes to the recruiting, selecting, grooming, training, and mentoring, of the armed services' future leaders.I personally think it's a mistake to allow women in combat arms. I believe it will destroy esprit de corp and diminish the effectiveness of our combat units, and I do not get a warm fuzzy feeling from reading the various reports issued by the MLDC that they have properly researched this issue before recommending a drastic change.Per a post TR published some months back, I shall stay in my lane on the topic of women serving in combat arms and the impact on operational effectiveness.