William S. Lind :collection (merged thread)

[former_0302]

Access to enlistment is not the issue. Willingness to enlist is the issue. As the country becomes increasingly Hispanic (and to some extent, Asian) while the Army remains white and black, the disproportions will only increase. This logic is also at work in the growth of metropolitan areas and the depopulation of rural areas - and the relatively fast growth of the West (driven by Hispanics and Asians) compared to the rest of the country. Is it "bad" in of itself that the Army is disproportionately white and black? No. But it becomes "bad" when, for example, senior leaders fail to recognize the demographic makeup of their institution and attempt to implement policies that are actually destructive of good order and discipline. And this will become an issue in the future as Congress, especially the House, begans to reflect the changing demographic patterns of the country, and it starts focusing its attention on dated military policies and culture.

Hmmm... well, I can't speak for the entirety of the USMC, but my service has acquainted me with vastly more Hispanic Marines than AA Marines. Perhaps it's a service thing.

Can you give an example of the sort of policy which is "...actually destructive of good order and discipline?" Not entirely sure of what you're driving at.

It is absolutely a military problem if 1 of 4 potential recruits are ineligible to enlist on the basis of their education or health. It was the military at the start of the Cold War that pushed for the national school lunch program, and it should continue to support policies that are conducive to maintaining an able-bodied and -minded population. This also applies to the country's technological policies. Policy-makers should rid themselves of the false dichtonomy between military and non-military spending and, through the painful process of Congressional appropriations, seek out a rational budget that recognizes the linkages between public policy and military capabilities.

Is it military problem? Only if the military requires significantly more people than it does now. You're saying 75% of the potential recruits are eligible? According to the figures on the census.gov site, there's about 29 million 17-29 year old males in the US. If 75% of that is fit for military service, I'd say our problem isn't too severe, unless we plan to occupy China.

If the values are different, don't be surprised when Congress decreases defense spending, cuts back troop and procurement numbers, and limits pay and benefits. American veterans receive a special place in the politics of the public, and this is unique to the United States; with the country's changing demographics and diverging makeup of the military and general population, that's not guaranteed to last.

We must be thinking of "values" in different contexts. Your response doesn't make any sense to me in relation to the point I was trying to make, so I'll assume I just didn't state what I meant very clearly...