Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Orcastraiter who wrote (18036)	9/30/2004 7:11:27 PM
From: sandintoes	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 90947

As much as you'd like it to be true, it isn't! Black-casualty myth shattered Posted: January 29, 2003 1:00 a.m. Eastern When Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., called for the return of the military draft to prevent black soldiers from dying on the front lines in disproportionate numbers, hardly anyone questioned his premise. Maybe he was wrong about the draft, but few argued that blacks served on the front-lines in higher percentages than whites. It turns out that premise, too, is dead wrong. In fact, it's whites who serve on the front-lines in disproportionate numbers. Thank USA Today, of all sources, for nailing down the numbers. So, when the war in Iraq comes, the American troops most likely to fight and die are disproportionately white, not black, military statistics show. Why? Black recruits in recent years have been drawn toward non-combat jobs that provide more marketable skills for post-military careers. It is true that blacks serve in the military in disproportionate numbers. About 20 percent of the military is black, while blacks represent just over 12 percent of the U.S. population. But of the 45,586 enlisted combat infantrymen, only 10.6 percent are black. Blacks are even less likely to die in air combat or sea combat. Of the Air Force's 12,000 pilots, only 245, or 2 percent, are black. In the Navy, 2.5 percent of pilots are black. Of the 4,278 Green Berets, fewer than 5 percent are black. Should any of this make the slightest bit of difference to anyone? Should whites now rise up in anger because they will be dying in greater numbers during a war? Is any of this head-counting relevant to the goal of winning military victory? Absolutely not – to all of the above. It was disingenuous when the racial card was deceitfully played by Rangel and others in calling for a draft, and it would be wrong to use the correct information to make any value judgments. Quotas serve no purpose. Racial preferences do not make government agencies more effective. Affirmative action doesn't make for more successful students and universities. And the U.S. military won't be a better fighting force if it exactly replicates the racial breakdown of our society at large. But it will be interesting to hear whether the facts change Rangel's outlook. Will he and those who support his position find new excuses for bringing back the draft? Will they plead for more fairness toward white soldiers and their families? Will they insist that white soldiers be given preference in securing future non-combat assignments? Somehow I doubt the facts will change a thing. The calls for a draft by Rangel and others had nothing to do with "fairness" or equitable treatment in the first place. It was a tactic designed to undermine our latest military operation – nothing more, nothing less. Rangel is old enough to remember what really motivated opposition to the war in Vietnam. He's old enough to remember how the "peace movement" folded its tent and went home after the draft was eliminated. And he wants the new antiwar movement to be strong. If Rangel is for it, you can be sure there are plenty of good reasons to oppose it: We don't need it. No one in the Defense Department is calling for a draft. The voluntary army is working just fine. If we need more troops, President Bush ought to go before the nation and ask for volunteers. Since he hasn't seen the necessity of doing that, the manpower crunch can't be very severe. The draft, like it or not, is involuntary servitude – prohibited by the U.S. Constitution. The people making the case for the draft today think women should be permitted to fight on the front lines. This is not only morally wrong, it is militarily counterproductive. If they get their way, prepare for your daughters to be drafted. The main reason opponents of this war want to see the draft reinstated is because their biggest fear is that the U.S. will win a clear-cut victory. The thought of that drives them nuts. worldnetdaily.com