Too Many Whites, Men Leading the Military?

[greenberetTFS]

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..... He made it the hard way,he EARNED it......

Big Teddy

[Richard]

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...tcmp=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

[Dusty]

It's another Diversity thing.

http://www.diversitylane.com/images/...you_purple.jpg

Originally Posted by Dusty

http://www.navytimes.com/news/2011/0...litary-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...

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?

EDIT: Pink...as per PSMs fix.

[delta6]

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]

Originally Posted by delta6

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]

Originally Posted by Sarski

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]

Originally Posted by delta6

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]

Originally Posted by afchic

Please enlighten us on what exactly that means.

With photographs, please.

Pat

[silentreader]

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]

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. edited to add: 2006 data.

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by dennisw

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?

Originally Posted by Requiem

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]

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]

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/documen..._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]

Originally Posted by Requiem

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.