Who Serves in the U.S. Military? The Demographics of Enlisted Troops and Officers

[The Reaper]

Great read, interesting analysis.

Could it be that John Kerry was wrong?

TR

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Nat...y/cda08-05.cfm

August 21, 2008

Who Serves in the U.S. Military? The Demographics of Enlisted Troops and Officers

by Shanea Watkins, Ph.D. and James Sherk

Center for Data Analysis Report #08-05

As a synopsis:

"Conventional wisdom holds that military service disproportionately attracts minorities and men and women from disadvan-taged backgrounds. Many believe that troops enlist because they have few options, not because they want to serve their country. Others believe that the war in Iraq has forced the
military to lower its recruiting standards.

Any discussion of troop quality must take place in context. A soldier's demographic characteristics are of little importance in the military, which values honor, leadership, self-sacrifice, courage, and integrity - qualities that cannot be quantified. Nonetheless, any assessment of the quality of recruits can take place only on the basis of objective criteria.

Demographic characteristics are a poor proxy for the quality of those who serve in the armed forces, but they can help to explain which Americans volunteer for military service and why.

Based on an understanding of the limitations of any objective definition of quality, the attached report compares military volunteers to the civilian population on four demographic characteristics: household income, education level, racial and ethnic back-ground, and regional origin. This report finds
that:

1. U.S. military service disproportionately attracts enlisted personnel and officers who do not come from disadvantaged backgrounds. Previous Heritage Foundation research demonstrated that the quality of enlisted troops has increased since the start of the Iraq war. This report demonstrates that the same is true of the officer corps.

2. Members of the all-volunteer military are significantly more likely to come from high-income neighborhoods than from low-income neighborhoods. Only 11 percent of enlisted recruits in 2007 came from the poorest one-fifth (quintile) of neighborhoods, while 25 per-cent came from the wealthiest quintile. These trends are even more pronounced in the Army Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) program, in which 40 percent of enrollees come from the wealthiest neighborhoods - a number that has increased substantially over the past four years.

3. American soldiers are more educated than their peers. A little more than 1 percent of enlisted personnel lack a high school degree, compared to 21 percent of men 18-24 years old, and 95 percent of officer accessions have at least a bachelor's degree.

4. Contrary to conventional wisdom, minorities are not overrepresented in military service. Enlisted troops are somewhat more likely to be white or black than their non-military peers. Whites are proportionately represented in the officer corps, and blacks are overrepresented, but their rate of over-representation has declined each year from 2004 to 2007. New recruits are also disproportionately likely to come from the South, which is in line with the history of Southern military tradition.

The facts do not support the belief that many American soldiers volunteer because society offers them few other opportunities. The average enlisted person or officer could have had lucrative career opportunities in the private sector. Those who argue that American soldiers risk their lives because they have no other opportunities belittle the personal sacrifices of those who serve out of love for their country."

[Pete]

As usual truth does not match the MSM and libs spin.

And what do the "Great Unwashed Mass" think? Whatever the MSM and libs tell them.

[afchic]

I agree wholeheartedly with the article. The problem is every time you try to show this to a liberal they say that because the Heritage Foundation is the one that did the study, it has to be incorrect.

I'll put my Bachelors Degree in Exercise Physiology, my MBA and my soon to be Masters in National Security Affairs up against Kerry and his ilk any day of the week and twice on Sundays.

For the record I was raised in the Air Force, which had a lot to do with my deciding to join. But I have 1 older brother and 2 younger sisters that decided not to, so the whole shtick I have been fed by many liberals that the only reason I joined is because my parents forced me too is BS.

Additionally, yes I did have an ROTC scholarship, for a year, then decided I didn't want to be a nurse so I dropped it, and paid for my schooling by taking out student loans, working 30 hour weeks while taking an 18 hour course load, playing a Div 1 sport, and doing what I needed to with the Corps of Cadets to include being Commander of the Arnold Air Society. So much for joining for the school bennies.

Why is it so hard for liberals to understand that I joined the military because I wanted to serve my country? Why is that such a foreign concept that so many have a difficult time understanding?

[charlietwo]

Originally Posted by afchic

Why is it so hard for liberals to understand that I joined the military because I wanted to serve my country? Why is that such a foreign concept that so many have a difficult time understanding?

Because liberals, as a general rule, see the 'greater good' as humanity, rather than the nation. They fail to realize that you can not take care of humanity until you can take care of yourself, your family, and your nation.

In addition, the concept of peace through strength , which has been a pillar of the American Military, has been bred out of liberal Americans systematically since birth. Most despise this concept and refer to it as "war-mongering".

C2

[JCasp]

Thanks for that article TR. I always "felt" that way, and it would frustrate me when I would hear berating comments about myself and my fellow grunts. Nice to have a study that supports my belief.

[HOLLiS]

Thank you for the article, that agrees with information in this article:

http://www.25thaviation.org/johnkerry/id27.htm

It has to do with creating a culture of defeat in the US and the myths about those who served.

[ZonieDiver]

The seniors in my high school who enlist in the military upon graduation are a lot closer to the top of their class than to the middle of their class, let alone the bottom.

[Defender968]

Originally Posted by charlietwo

Because liberals, as a general rule, see the 'greater good' as humanity, rather than the nation. They fail to realize that you can not take care of humanity until you can take care of yourself, your family, and your nation.

C2

I agree, and would venture to guess that when the Star Spangled Banner plays the hair on the back of a liberal's neck doesn't stand up.

[Pete]

Originally Posted by Defender968

I agree, and would venture to guess that when the Star Spangled Banner plays the hair on the back of a liberal's neck doesn't stand up.

To them I'd guess it's more like fingernails on a blackboard.

To me my chest swells a bit and I stand a bit staighter.

[stuW]

"Why is it so hard for liberals to understand that I joined the military because I wanted to serve my country? Why is that such a foreign concept that so many have a difficult time understanding?"

This really made me think of an article a friend wrote. Below is part of it, but I think it provides some answers.

http://www.michigandaily.com/content...-stop-genocide

"But more importantly, there is a distressingly repressed facet of liberalism that the event demonstrated: Contemporary liberals in Clinton's mold (i.e. Rwanda) have entirely balked at the notion of resisting - as in using force - against totalitarian or genocidal regimes. The Camus-Orwell branch of vigilant liberalism is all but extinct. The post-1968 delusion of pacifism and nonviolence has reared an entire generation of milquetoast liberals bereft of any of the fortitude or resolve vital to the liberalism of the past. In its stead, they have placed complete faith in nonprofit aid work and the fumbling mess of international deliberation characteristic of the United Nations.

I don't want to put a bumper sticker on my car to stop genocide in Sudan. And I don't want to wait for the money I send to an aid organization to percolate through its bureaucratic coffers before it translates into real change.

I'm for bricks and baseball bats over "devastating satire" or ineffectual diplomacy."

[Defender968]

Originally Posted by Pete

To them I'd guess it's more like fingernails on a blackboard.

To me my chest swells a bit and I stand a bit staighter.

I agree completely, you feel pride deep down, you know I think they should do a test, if you don't have a positive emotional reaction to Star Spangled Banner especially after being educated on the back story behind it, you should lose your citizenship.

At the end of the day you either love this country or you don't and to all who don't, feel free to find another one, might I suggest Iran.

[greenberetTFS]

Originally Posted by Defender968

I agree completely, you feel pride deep down, you know I think they should do a test, if you don't have a positive emotional reaction to Star Spangled Banner especially after being educated on the back story behind it, you should lose your citizenship.

At the end of the day you either love this country or you don't and to all who don't, feel free to find another one, might I suggest Iran.

I am totally in agreement with Pete and Defender968.... If this country is good enough to live in,it's good enough to fight for...