home

Prince Harry Won't Go to Iraq After All

By Jeralyn, Section War In Iraq
Posted on Wed May 16, 2007 at 12:26:46 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

British authorities have decided it's too dangerous for Prince Harry to go to Iraq -- his face has been too well-publicized and he's too big a target.

Prince Harry is said to be very disappointed. I can only think about how relieved Diana would be, if she were alive. A smart decision. If he is a individualized target, there's also a much greater risk of danger to his team members traveling with him.

I don't think it's a question of valuing his life more than others. I think it's a question of whether sending him amounts to state-assisted suicide because he'd be such a trophy for the insurgents.

< Paul Wolfowitz May Resign Today | Gonzales' Troubling Testimony >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Prince Harry Won't Go to Iraq After All | 71 comments (71 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Yea... (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by desertswine on Wed May 16, 2007 at 12:50:38 PM EST
    It's much too dangerous for the wealthy, party-going Harry. But not too dangerous for anyone else. Maybe we'd have less war if the wealthy were actually forced to go and not just the poor.

    So, I just found out last weekend (none / 0) (#3)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed May 16, 2007 at 01:05:08 PM EST
    that two friends of mine have chosen to go to Iraq.

    One, a 21 year old son of an old boss of mine (he made about 150K when I worked for him) enlisted in the Army about a month ago.

    The other, a 40 year-old ex-Navy Seal, married father of two young sons, and a very successful commercial realtor, signed up with Blackwater.

    Parent

    Oh No, not Blackwater ;( (none / 0) (#6)
    by Militarytracy on Wed May 16, 2007 at 01:19:24 PM EST
    I have an interesting personal story about Iraq service too.  An Army social worker completely disgusted me a year ago when she did a family assessment of our family and considered my husband deployable even though our son has at least two surgeries a year to lengthen the titanium rib structure that controls his scoliosis.  She said that if I visited her once a week and was able to "vent" that my family would be fine.  Strangely though the guy my daughter dates is friends with her son.  She is a very protective mother, maybe a little too much.  Her son just turned 18 and snuck off and joined the Army, he is going to be an MP.  He is in bootcamp right now and already told that in 6 months he will be in Iraq.  A mutual acquaintance told me last week that sadly the woman has become a raging screaming lunatic blaming her husband for their son doing such a crazy thing and has nearly driven her private practice psychologist husband out of their house.  I think she just needs to come over and "vent" to me once a week and then her life will become completely normal again.

    Parent
    MT (none / 0) (#7)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed May 16, 2007 at 01:26:49 PM EST
    All good, my main point is that those choosing to go to Iraq are not "just the poor."

    I should have made that clear.

    Parent

    I would respectfully argue... (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Dadler on Wed May 16, 2007 at 01:39:53 PM EST
    ...that the number of those in and "choosing" to go who are NOT from the lower economic rungs of our class ladder are a small enough percentage as to make the phrase "just the poor" much more true than not.

    Parent
    btw (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed May 16, 2007 at 02:04:34 PM EST
    The only other guy I know in Iraq is my old college roommate. Not poor.

    That said, I'm not poor. I don't hang out with poor people. And most if not all of my social circle when I was poor are now, like me, not poor any more, so my experience is probably somewhat skewed.

    Still, that aside, do you have any stats?

    Parent

    Is your old college roommate an officer? (none / 0) (#19)
    by Militarytracy on Wed May 16, 2007 at 02:32:28 PM EST


    Parent
    My guess is yes. (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed May 16, 2007 at 02:37:56 PM EST
    I haven't talked to him in years.

    He was a ROTC Ranger in college, engineering major, smart cat.

    Parent

    Most college educated go in as officers (none / 0) (#24)
    by Militarytracy on Wed May 16, 2007 at 02:43:41 PM EST
    It is a much more comfortable existence and you get to work with a "career manager" and design your own career to an extent.  Pay is one h*ll of a lot better too and you aren't necessarily always outside the wire like the enlisted are unless you choose to be.  Sadly, I would say that most of the enlisted come from lower or lower middle class families.  They spend their military lives being told what, when, how, and where and they spend most of their military lives outside the wire, And that's just the way it is ;(

    Parent
    Ok (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed May 16, 2007 at 03:08:01 PM EST
    I've been googling but everything I could find refers back to the Heritage study that no one finds acceptable.

    So where are the stats from accepted sources t support the contention that the poor are significantly overrepresented and the not-poor significantly underrepresented?

    Or all we all just giving opinions with no factual basis?

    Parent

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by squeaky on Wed May 16, 2007 at 03:15:33 PM EST
    The only group that would have that info is the military and they are not talking, except to the Heritage foundation.

    Wonder why? If they released statistics regarding the background of current recruits, do you think that they would look bad?

    If it is true that most fighting in Iraq are representative of population statistics at large, wouldn't that cast the warmongers in a good light?

    Since they are not releasing the info, I can only imagine that the stats would cast a bad light on military recruitment.

    Parent

    It's meant to be that way (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Militarytracy on Wed May 16, 2007 at 03:22:03 PM EST
    right now.  Don't let it worry you, just because we don't have the stats won't stop coffins from showing up back home and I care about all of them, not just poor ones.

    Parent
    I hear you MT (none / 0) (#35)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed May 16, 2007 at 03:32:05 PM EST
    I had hoped that we'd settle the question today about the economic status of our enlistees.

    However it looks like all we'll be able to get are opinions.

    I thought we might learn something factual, but I guess not.

    Parent

    You might well be right Dadler (none / 0) (#11)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed May 16, 2007 at 01:54:40 PM EST
    I have no statistics, are you aware of any?

    Parent
    Not Just the Poor (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by squeaky on Wed May 16, 2007 at 01:48:28 PM EST
    But very few of the rich. Although all of the people who got us into the war are from the rich and no one who got us into the war are from the poor.

    Go figure.

    Parent

    I agree that most if not all politicians are rich (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed May 16, 2007 at 01:57:51 PM EST
    or, at least not poor...

    Parent
    Very true (none / 0) (#8)
    by Militarytracy on Wed May 16, 2007 at 01:31:09 PM EST
    My experience too right now.  Blackwater will secure an upper middle class existence for awhile though while some housing markets are taking a hit.

    Parent
    Tracy (none / 0) (#42)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed May 16, 2007 at 05:22:53 PM EST
    Of course real estate brokers don't get shot at, or tortured if captured..

    Wait! Wrong! This is Los Angeles I'm writing about!

    Parent

    Tracy (none / 0) (#37)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed May 16, 2007 at 03:50:44 PM EST
    Interesting... The Navy policy at one times was simple... The husband had to be there for laying the keel of the new ship, but not for the launching....

    I always thought it kind of cruel, but fair.

    In the case of surgery on a child, I don't know. I would guess that a transfer to shore duty might have been arranged, but never special treatment within the squadron.

    Parent

    I have mixed feelings (none / 0) (#4)
    by Militarytracy on Wed May 16, 2007 at 01:07:52 PM EST
    If the priviledged children of the deciders can't go that only leaves those under them ;(  and then because he would be a valuable prize (the Hope Diamond of Iraq) he would place the other soldiers around him at great risk and that isn't better.

    Parent
    The military (none / 0) (#14)
    by Slado on Wed May 16, 2007 at 02:11:26 PM EST
    Stats

    Why won't people dropt he myth that only poor people enter the military?

    Now I'm sure you will see different numbers as compared to who enlists, who's in ROTC, who's in the reserves, officers etc.... but overall the stats don't lie.

    The truth is there aren't as many rich people as there are poor or middle class people so it'd be impossible for the rich and privledge to greatly outnumber the poor.

    From the article..."Put simply, the current makeup of the all-vol­untary military looks like America. Where they are different, the data show that the average sol­dier is slightly better educated and comes from a slightly wealthier, more rural area. We found that the military (and Army specifically) included a higher proportion of blacks and lower propor­tions of other minorities but a proportionate num­ber of whites. More important, we found that recruiting was not drawing disproportionately from racially concentrated areas."

    Also ask yourself if Ivy Leauge and elite institutions actively reject military recruitment on campus and most college proffessors are liberal and actively hostile to the military how is the military supposed to recruit our best and brightest?

    Even if the claim was true it seems odd that those who make it are at the same time part of the cabal to reject the military from recruiting our best young people.

    None the less the myth that only the poor or mostly poor make-up the military is simply a myth used to better an argument rather then fact.

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#17)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed May 16, 2007 at 02:17:55 PM EST
    I don't have the time to wade through the whole report, but this did jump out at me:
    The household income of recruits generally matches the income distribution of the American population. There are slightly higher proportions of recruits from the middle class and slightly lower proportions from low-income brackets. However, the proportion of high-income recruits rose to a disproportionately high level after the war on ter­rorism began, as did the proportion of highly edu­cated enlistees.


    Parent
    SUO (none / 0) (#38)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed May 16, 2007 at 03:51:41 PM EST
    Facts Facts Facts

    Would you quit that!!

    Parent

    I wasn't implying that the (none / 0) (#18)
    by Militarytracy on Wed May 16, 2007 at 02:30:03 PM EST
    military doesn't reflect a cross section of America.  We don't have any "decider" children serving though except Webb's son.  When you don't have skin in the game it makes disassociation a little easy.  When you have deciders disassociated from the consequences of their war decisions Martha would probably tell you it isn't a good thing.

    Parent
    Your stats are from the Heritage Foundation (none / 0) (#20)
    by Militarytracy on Wed May 16, 2007 at 02:37:12 PM EST
    That's just a little bit scary ;).

    Parent
    I'm out of the loop, (none / 0) (#22)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed May 16, 2007 at 02:39:57 PM EST
    what is the Heritage Foundation?

    Parent
    A right wing think tank (none / 0) (#23)
    by squeaky on Wed May 16, 2007 at 02:42:47 PM EST
    Famous for their neocon views.

    Parent
    A right wing think tank? (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Militarytracy on Wed May 16, 2007 at 02:46:44 PM EST
    You're going a little easy on the batsh*t crazy global warming and evolution are unproven theory freaks aren't you squeaky?

    Parent
    Just stating the facts, Ma'am (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by squeaky on Wed May 16, 2007 at 02:56:03 PM EST
    Nice to see your spot on characterization though. The real question is why would such a right wing org want to debunk the commonly held idea that most of the troops come from poorer backgrounds than rich ones?

    Parent
    I think they don't want Americans (none / 0) (#27)
    by Militarytracy on Wed May 16, 2007 at 02:59:47 PM EST
    to believe that almost all of the enlisted come from impoverished circumstances.

    Parent
    Why? (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by squeaky on Wed May 16, 2007 at 03:08:38 PM EST
    Do you think if most Americans knew this that they would be against the war?

    I think that it is more about recruiting members to their side of the aisle and has little to do with the war per se. It lowers the guilt factor aka white man's burden, and makes joining such a despicible org more palatlble.

    Instead of handing out rose colored glasses they color the air. It helps suspension of disbelief. Don't ask don't tell, no war pictures, no coffins, and no presidential appearences at military funerals.

    What War?

    Parent

    You may be right (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Militarytracy on Wed May 16, 2007 at 03:19:28 PM EST
    I haven't been able to figure out why they do half of what they do.

    Parent
    All the "facts" are cited and listed (none / 0) (#40)
    by Slado on Wed May 16, 2007 at 04:21:18 PM EST
    If you still want to believe what you want no matter how many facts are presented because you won't accept the messenger then fine but that's pretty weak.

    I agree with your point that officers vs. enlisted probably differs but that is a reality set up by the military itself isn't it?

    The military sets the standards for being an officer and always has.

    Also no one commented on my link of a DNC site that stated colleges reject military recruiters.

    Kind of a double standard no?

    Parent

    Dear heart (none / 0) (#46)
    by Militarytracy on Wed May 16, 2007 at 09:00:28 PM EST
    I'm not hanging anything to include my hat on something coming out of the Heritage Foundation these days.  The Heritage Foundation isn't known for facts, and if these are facts where is the raw data they come from or is it just what the Heritage Foundation wants us to believe?

    Parent
    Come on Tracy can't we accept facts? (none / 0) (#47)
    by Slado on Thu May 17, 2007 at 08:46:27 AM EST
    All the charts and data come from refrenced sources and are mentioned at the end of the report.

    If you don't want to read it and would rather make up your mind before reveiwing it that's a choice but an uninformed opinion based on rumor isn't really an opinion is it?

    The Census data is taken directly from the U.S. Bureau of the Census.  

    If we can't even accept facts from the other side whats the point of debating anything?

    Parent

    Okay, I went over all of it (none / 0) (#48)
    by Militarytracy on Thu May 17, 2007 at 09:54:58 AM EST
    I have posted here before about how Clinton prefered a well educated military and it was actually hard to get into the military when he was President.  He also gave us some pretty big pay raises so that the soldiers could catch up with civilians.  Did you happen to notice the dates on the data?  2003ish?  That was on what was left of Bill Clinton's military.  He liked a well educated military not just trigger fingers for the meat grinder.  We aren't that military anymore and most of that military quit when they could get out and the getting was good silly Slado.  We are now the new and improved Donald Rumsfeld military and I would really like to see some current stats!

    Parent
    Here are 2005 stats that I found (none / 0) (#49)
    by Militarytracy on Thu May 17, 2007 at 10:18:54 AM EST
    for 2005 recruitment clearly showing and stating that recruits from lower to lower middle income households were over represented.  I guess squeaky was right.  Sorry Slado.

    Parent
    Interesting, but not a good methodology (none / 0) (#52)
    by roy on Thu May 17, 2007 at 10:44:27 AM EST
    Age is critical, and the NPP writeup doesn't consider it:

    the share of total recruits living in zip code areas whose median household income fall within the range over the share of the total population living in such zip codes

    It really should be over the share of the same-age population living in such zip codes.  Because recruits tend to be young, and because (this is speculation on my part) young people have had less time to accumulate wealth and move into wealthier neighborhoods, I'd expect the NPP's calculation to show wealthy neighborhoods as underrepresented even if they're perfectly proportional when considering age.

    The effect would be reduced by recruits who live with their parents, but I don't know how common that is.

    Parent

    Not that Heritage is that much better (none / 0) (#53)
    by roy on Thu May 17, 2007 at 10:54:54 AM EST
    Heritage considers age, but they lump 18-24 year olds together.  Those are six very mobile years for Americans.  A 24 year old probably has either a college degree or six years of work experience and can afford to live on their own, so lumping them in the same category as 18 year olds who still live with their parents is going to screw with the numbers.  I don't know if it makes their results too optimistic or too pessimistic, but it makes them too something.

    It would be far better to compare 18 year old recruits with the 18 year old general population, 19's with 19's, and so on.

    And since we usually talk about who's children fight the war, rather than who fights the war, it might be more relevant to talk about recruits' parents incomes rather than recruits' incomes.  But I don't think the DOD tracks that.

    Parent

    I don't see how age is critical (none / 0) (#54)
    by Militarytracy on Thu May 17, 2007 at 11:04:57 AM EST
    poor is poor.  If you live alone and you are poor, you are poor.  If you live with your parents and that household is poor, you are poor.

    Parent
    MT (none / 0) (#56)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu May 17, 2007 at 11:40:34 AM EST
    Really, read roy's post again. He's right.

    If you looked at my income from, say, 8 years old when I waited tables at my church's Sat night Bingo game, to 21 when I graduated from college, I would absolutely qualify as "poor" although, thanks to my dad always having a good job, I certainly wasn't "poor" in any realistic sense.

    Parent

    Clarification (none / 0) (#57)
    by roy on Thu May 17, 2007 at 12:01:15 PM EST
    Of course poor is poor, but I think people tend to get less poor as they age, so comparing young people to the total population including older people is comparing apples to oranges.  Or at least comparing apples to apples + oranges.

    As for people living with their parents, that muddies the waters for both studies.  Some of the data indicates recruits' status, and some of it indicates recruits' parents' status.  Apples and oranges again.

    This is a wildly exaggerated and simplified illustration of why the NPP methodology is inadequate:

    50% of the total population lives in ZIP code 12345, where the average income is $20K per year.  The other 50% lives in ZIP code 67890, where the average income is $500K per year.

    75% of people age 18-24 live in ZIP code 12345, the poor neighborhood.  The other 25% live in ZIP code 67890.

    100% of recruits are age 18-24.

    75% of recruits come from ZIP code 12345, the poor neighborhood.  The other 25% come from 67890.

    The NPP methodology would indicate that poor people are overrepresented, because 75% of recruits come from the poor neighborhood, while only 50% of the total population comes from the poor neighborhood.

    The Heritage methodology would indicate (imo, more correctly and relevantly) that recruits represent the population fairly, because their economic status exactly reflects the economic status of their age peers in the total population.

    This is not a claim that the Heritage methodology is perfect or even sufficient, just that it's more resistant to this particular kind of error.

    Parent

    Statistics (none / 0) (#58)
    by squeaky on Thu May 17, 2007 at 12:13:43 PM EST
    Roy- Your argument shows how easily statistics can be manipulated by someone with an agends.

    The Heritage Foundation has a very big agenda, in fact thet are all agenda all the time. They are in lockstep with neocon goals. There is no way that anything that they pump out is neutral. Everything they do is to support the Iraq war and PNAC.

    They specialize in propaganda, false propaganda.

    Parent

    Yes, but... (none / 0) (#59)
    by roy on Thu May 17, 2007 at 12:37:24 PM EST
    When a propagandist cites his sources, and those sources appear legit, substantive arguments are much more interesting than ad hominem arguments.  

    When the only substantive arguments raised are irrelevant, fundamentally flawed, or not that big a deal, the propagandist still looks pretty good.

    I'll do some Googling this evening to see if I can find a debunking of the Heritage study somewhere else...

    Parent

    MilitaryTracy has already (none / 0) (#60)
    by squeaky on Thu May 17, 2007 at 12:43:36 PM EST
    Posted another source and Che has spoken from experience.

    Although, since the Government is the only source of the information, it is not possible to really tell what is true. Had the statistics made the government look good the results would be easy to find.

    Parent

    MT (none / 0) (#61)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu May 17, 2007 at 12:55:22 PM EST
    Accepting for the moment that your graph is accurate and relevant, how does that support this statement of yours?
    almost all of the enlisted come from impoverished circumstances.


    Parent
    They don't (none / 0) (#41)
    by Slado on Wed May 16, 2007 at 04:22:38 PM EST
    Where are you facts or are they simily stated beliefs?

    Parent
    Please see facts NOT from the (none / 0) (#50)
    by Militarytracy on Thu May 17, 2007 at 10:19:48 AM EST
    Heritage Foundation above.

    Parent
    When you are poor those new sign (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Militarytracy on Thu May 17, 2007 at 10:21:38 AM EST
    up bonuses that are being offered look pretty darned good and when you are young you are always going to live forever.

    Parent
    More stats (none / 0) (#62)
    by Slado on Thu May 17, 2007 at 03:39:16 PM EST
    Stats

    How about straight from the military Tracy?

    Parent

    Those don't seem very helpful (none / 0) (#63)
    by roy on Thu May 17, 2007 at 04:35:43 PM EST
    The only thing on there that sort of applies to soldiers' social class is education (pages 4 & 6).  It looks like they tried to correct for age, but they've done it in a weird way.  The table on page 6 should be key, but I keep re-reading the damned thing and I still can't figure out what they claim to be comparing.  All accessions?  18-19 year old accessions?  HSDG, or HSDG and/or GED?  And what exactly is an "accession" anyway?

    Cool pictures though.

    Parent

    roy (none / 0) (#64)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu May 17, 2007 at 04:45:00 PM EST
    Have you looked deeper into Tracy's link? I tried to follow her graph's links to its source material, but it doesn't seem to exist...

    Parent
    It's in there (none / 0) (#65)
    by roy on Thu May 17, 2007 at 05:10:23 PM EST
    Their interface is a huge pain, but you can get their data if you want it.  For instance, here's some numbers for a handful of ZIP codes in Texas.  Uhm, click "next step".  It won't let me link directly to the results.  It's just a really crappy interface.

    That at least covers the recruitment numbers.  I haven't found their income numbers, but the US census reports that stuff so it's not controversial.

    Since I object to their methodology, I didn't bother to scrutinize their data.  Plus telling good data from bad is really hard and usually over my head.  I suspect it's fine, but if I were to be pedantic I'd point out that the only accessible source they list is themselves.  They say "data were obtained from the Army through FOIA requests", which is an excellent way to research, but since they provide their own database instead of the Army's responses, we can't do much double-checking.

    Parent

    Good pont (none / 0) (#67)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu May 17, 2007 at 05:23:45 PM EST
    but since they provide their own database instead of the Army's responses, we can't do much double-checking.
    and the lack of ability to access the Army's actual numbers sounds a little like some of the criticisms levied at the HF's analysis.

    Personally, I don't doubt for a second that the more-wealthy are underrepresented, but when people start throwing around rhetoric like "most of the enlisted are impoverished" or "this is a rich man's war but the poor man is fighting it" my BS meter goes off.

    It is not a simple thing to quantify, unfortunately, which I imagine everyone with an agenda utilizes to their best advantage.

    Parent

    Statistics, Heritage and military (none / 0) (#66)
    by Peaches on Thu May 17, 2007 at 05:19:55 PM EST
    I tried googling, too. I couldn't find much. You would think that there would be some stats that would compare the income levels of enlistees with the general population, but Roy has pointed out some  difficulties with errors that could come from many stats.

    So, I'll just throw in some assumptions. I assume most people who join the military do so for economic reasons. What I mean is that it is a choice for a career. As in, "what should I do with my life now that I am out of school and my parents want me to move out?" A wild assumption, and I realize this doesn't fit everyone, but I think it does the majority. When people contemplate economic choices they make choices depending on opportunities. As income goes down, choices become limiting. Not in every case, because for some, a low income can lead to means grants for scholarships, financial aide etc. However, I think that for most people, this is true. One choice that always remains despite income is a career in the military. So, common sense and a little economic analysis tells us that as income becomes lower choices for careers become more limited. Therefore, enlistees in our military over-represent individuals coming from lowere economic backgrounds and minorities.

    That is the hypothesis. Statistics would test this hypothesis. Perhaps Slado and The Heritage Foundation have demonstrated that this hypothesis might need to be reconsidered. I'd like to see more conclusive evidence, however with more rigorous analysis that makes corrections for the type of errors Roy is talking about. I'll make a confession, though. Statistics make my head hurt and you can fault with many studies. Look deep enough and you can be lead not to trust anything that relies on probability analysis or regressions. I've looked at enough studies to know I don't look forward to looking further and deeper into more. And, so often, I look to the source and decide to dismiss a study based on the sources agenda. Thus I don't pay much attention to anything coming from the Heritage Foundation either anymore. Thanks Roy for doing the heavy work this time and looking deeper.

    Parent

    The WaPo says (none / 0) (#68)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu May 17, 2007 at 05:38:19 PM EST
    Therefore, enlistees in our military over-represent individuals coming from lowere economic backgrounds and minorities. That is the hypothesis.
    this about minorities:
    Blacks fell from 22.3 percent of Army recruits in fiscal 2001 to 14.5 percent this year; Hispanics rose from 10.5 percent to 13.2 percent, and whites, from 60.2 percent to 66.9 percent. Women dropped from 20 percent to 18 percent.
    we're still trying to get good numbers on the other half of your hypothesis, although I think from the numbers Slado and Tracy have linked to, the majority of enlistees come from the broad "middle class" backgrounds. Whatever that means...

    Parent
    And the WaPo's stats on race are confirmed by (none / 0) (#70)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu May 17, 2007 at 06:06:14 PM EST
    the Army:

    Total Active-Duty

                 Male   Female
    White     63.9%  42.4%
    Black     19.0%  37.3%
    Hispanic 10.3%  11.6%
    Asian     3.8%   5.0%
    Other     3.0%   3.7%


    Parent

    Oops (none / 0) (#71)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu May 17, 2007 at 06:17:50 PM EST
    Just realized you wrote "over-represented" and not "mostly."

    Your hypothesis seems correct with the exception of Hispanics who appear to be underrepresented. As are women.

    US by race:

    Race     Percentage

    White    80.2
    Black    12.8  
    American Indian and Alaska Native 1.0
    Asian    4.3
    Native Hawaiian and other Pacific Islander 0.2
    Hispanic 14.4

    Parent

    Broad "middle class" backgrounds (none / 0) (#72)
    by Peaches on Fri May 18, 2007 at 09:20:15 AM EST
    I'll make another assumption (Guess) on what is meant by broad. As the gap between the upper incomes and the rest of society widens, the middle class for the most part (in terms of numbers) is closer to the lower incomes in terms of opportunities and choice (in career). My guess is that from the beginnings of the volunteer force through the 1990's the makeup of the military was much further from the demographics of society at-large and was over-represented by both minorities and individuals with backgrounds from low income families and neighborhoods. If the demographics of enlistees has changed (and my guess is that it has) and become closer to the demographics of society at large, I would hypothesize that this is because opportunities and career choice for middle class whites, and college graduates has become more limited in recent years due to the increasing income gap, stagnant wages in the private sector, loss of manufacturing jobs, global trade, etc - all of which has lead to the military to being an increasingly attractive career choice in terms of economics.

    Parent
    Example (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by squeaky on Wed May 16, 2007 at 12:58:38 PM EST
    Prince Harry should be used as an example for withdrawing all the troops.

    It has always been noble for a royal to fight in a just war. The risks have always been the same, a royal is a bigger target/prize, which never stopped them from fighting valiantly in battle.

    The only conclusion it that this not a just war. Prince Harry is the best example for all our troops to leave Iraq NOW.

    I was there (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Wed May 16, 2007 at 03:09:48 PM EST
    I was in a combat MOS in the U.S. Army from 1984 to 1988 and it was 80 percent black and 95 percent poor to lower middle class. Out of about 100 people, there were two kids there who were from middle-upper class backgrounds and both of them were serving 4 years in the military in lieu of jail time (plea bargain on drug charges and tax evasion charges). So I call BS on Slado and the Heritage Foundation.

    I totally agree with desertswine. This sends a loud and clear message that the "royalty" of the world, who are responsible for this bloodbath, will never be called on to sacrifice in it.

    I don't think it's a question of valuing his life more than others. I think it's a question of whether sending him amounts to state-assisted suicide because he'd be such a trophy for the insurgents.

    They are ALL sitting ducks right now and every one of them is a trophy for the people that want them out of there, which is the overwhelming majority of the native population.

    I've said it many times. The quickest way to end this mess and future attempts at empire building is to start drafting middle-upper class kids. Pull 'em right out of the Ivy League schools and send them to Iraq. This thing would be over in HOURS.

    While I don't doubt your expereince (none / 0) (#33)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed May 16, 2007 at 03:21:57 PM EST
    it may not be universally true. According to a 2005 article in the WaPo:
    Being black and female, Gravely contradicts a national decline over the past four years in the willingness of both blacks and women to consider military service -- a shift polls attribute to the U.S. anti-terrorism effort and perceived discrimination. Blacks fell from 22.3 percent of Army recruits in fiscal 2001 to 14.5 percent this year; Hispanics rose from 10.5 percent to 13.2 percent, and whites, from 60.2 percent to 66.9 percent. Women dropped from 20 percent to 18 percent.


    Parent
    the heritage foundation report is a lie (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by cpinva on Wed May 16, 2007 at 03:38:12 PM EST
    if it were actually true, then explain why the army has had to reduce its physical, mental and moral standards, for recruiting purposes?

    the heritage foundation spews lies like flower girls toss rose petals on the path in front of the bride and groom: freely, and with no thought given to who will have to clean up after them.

    prove me wrong, show the source documents for the "data" purporting to underlie their "report".

    as for prince harry, i suspect he's quite disappointed, he's been trained for this for years. unfortunately, not only would he be a high profile target, he would make the rest of his unit a high profile target as well.

    that's the primary concern, which i understand.

    the iraq situation is much different from the falklands, which his uncle fought in, as a chopper pilot. actually, if he were a pilot, his profile would be lower, because they wouldn't actually be able to see his face.

    cpinva (none / 0) (#43)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed May 16, 2007 at 05:34:42 PM EST
    Why should anyone be interested in proving you wrong? Based on past history I would say that 10,000 angels swearing on their accuracy would not be acceptable.

    Besides, we both know that standard protocol is for the person making the claim, that's you, to prove your own point.

    Having said that, I confess to not knowing the sources, or the time frame. So your claim re reduced enlistment standards may, or may not be true, as well as their impact on the HF numbers.

    But, having said that, the HF numbers clearly show that the claim "only poor minorities are serving" is, to  quote that famed and fabled Army Colonel from MASH:

    Horse Hockey.

    Parent

    Keep digging (none / 0) (#45)
    by roy on Wed May 16, 2007 at 07:06:28 PM EST
    if it were actually true, then explain why the army has had to reduce its physical, mental and moral standards, for recruiting purposes?

    Irrelevant to whether the report is true; there is no contradiction.  The report is about the averages; the lowered standards were about the extremes.  Lowered mental standards probably decreased the average educational level, but that doesn't mean the military average must drop down below the general population's average.  This goes double if the number of recruits admitted under the new standards, who would have been rejected previously, is only a small percentage of the total recruits.

    I don't see any other category from the report that would be significantly affected by the lowered standards, but if there is, I suspect the same reasoning applies.  If you find some actual contradiction between reality and the report's conclusions, great, but you're not there yet.

    prove me wrong, show the source documents for the "data" purporting to underlie their "report".

    The report lists its sources, official DOD documents available over the web.  Did you check them out?  For the only part I bothered to double check ("The Southern Military Tradition"), the report's conclusions were consistent with the data.

    Parent

    roy, we are taking flight school candidates (none / 0) (#55)
    by Militarytracy on Thu May 17, 2007 at 11:16:41 AM EST
    in the Army right now that could have never been considered before and when they don't pass their check rides they are blaming the instructors, who are contractors for a private company.  It's utterly amazing right now, but you can't flunk flight school unless you jump out of a third story window and fail to breath again.  Most of the instructors are retired soldiers, but you don't want to be around any of them when they are drunk at a BBQ at this point in time because they are really pissed off about it all and they'll tell you about it.  If you fail to listen to them they might even punch you, they have sort of had enough of this crapola.

    Parent
    Let the other common sods (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Al on Wed May 16, 2007 at 06:21:47 PM EST
    go to Iraq and die. Prince Harry is too important a national symbol.

    I guess (none / 0) (#5)
    by HK on Wed May 16, 2007 at 01:14:08 PM EST
    now he can plough all his efforts into pastimes such as beating his brother's bar bill

    At least Nero (none / 0) (#16)
    by squeaky on Wed May 16, 2007 at 02:12:04 PM EST
    Was playing music.

    I get a bad feeling from this about where we are heading as a culture.

    Parent

    This means ... (none / 0) (#15)
    by chemoelectric on Wed May 16, 2007 at 02:12:02 PM EST
    This must mean that the British people donâ€<sup>TM</sup>t think anyone should be there, not least a hapless royal.

    The Brits.... (none / 0) (#69)
    by kdog on Thu May 17, 2007 at 05:40:37 PM EST
    screwed the pooch on this one something awful.  

    By announcing that the prince was going to Iraq, I bet they figured it would be great pr, "royalty sacrificing for a noble cause" or some such bull.  By changing their mind, they are telling the British people that Iraq isn't worth the prince's life, just your kids lives.  Talk about harsh...

    They never should have made the original announcement, but they got greedy for some good pr.  I'm glad its biting them in the arse.

    Good news for the prince though....

    Prince Harry Won't Go to Iraq After All | 71 comments (71 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment