William S. Lind :collection (merged thread)

[JMA]

Why should the military reflect society?

Exactly! As I asked a while ago should NASA reflect society demographics?

[AmericanPride]

Exactly! As I asked a while ago should NASA reflect society demographics?

Because the military isn't a special or elite class of society. It's not independent from the political-economic system of the country. It has changed, and will change, as the country changes. It's really only a question of how painful the military will make it for itself.

Insofar that military selectivity is based upon the merits necessary for effectively fighting and winning the nation's wars, policies and practices of exclusion and discrimination (i.e. phyical ability, mental or emotional health) are necessary. However, the military still retains vestiges of normative-driven discriminatory practices, among which is included the exclusion of women from combat positions. Another major one surrounds the treatment of PTSD and mental health. It's these norms, which are fiercely guarded but ultimately unrelated to the ability to fight and win wars, that undermine the military's capabilities to do so, and also causes unnecessary friction within the ranks and with the civilian population. And as I've pointed out earlier and elsewhere, the demographics of the country are changing rapidly. It's becoming more diverse, more urban, less religious, more social, and more independent. These are not easily translated into the current military culture.

There is somewhere a minimally required base of knowledge, skills, and abilities to be an "effective" soldier/airman, et al in the modern combat environment. And I very much doubt it has anything to do with race, ethnicity, religion, gender, sex, sexual preference or that it approximates to that of the 19th and early 20th centuries, upon which the model of our military is based. And it's from structure that culture is produced, not vice versa, meaning that a change in military culture first requires a change in structure. And that begins with dismantling the unnecessary discriminatory practices and suppressing those destructive norms that obstruct's the military's ability to adapt to the current social-political environment of the country. The geographical and demographic patterns of enlistments indicate this will be difficult from within the military institution; which only means that it will be (painfully) imposed by the political leadership rather than pre-empted by forward thinking military leaders.

So if it's the case that military knowledge, skill, or ability on the modern battlefield has nothing to do with any of the identities named above, then we have some serious questions to answer as to why there is significant social-economic divergence between the civilian population and the military. Even though the military is self-selective, which can be overcome through stronger institutional emphasis on education before and during service, self-selection is only part of the story; the other part of the story is how social structure filters a segment of society for military service through economic or social systems - why are African-Americans dispropotionately represented in the ranks? Is it because of "African-American" values (whatever they are) more closely align with the military's values than Asians and Hispanics (Paul Ryan might disagree...)?

Senior leaders need to have this kind of dialogue amongst themselves, with the public, and with the political leadership to identify exactly where the points of friction are located.

[AmericanPride]

Here's some stats for those complaining about "political correctness", equal opportunity programs, etc.

This is from the 2012 military demographics report. Here are the numbers for the Army:

O1 - O3: 19.73% female
O4 - O6: 14.24% female
O7 - O10: 6.56% female

E1-E4: 14.05% female
E5-E6: 11.62% female
E7-E9: 10.86% female

Women are not promoted at the same rate as men (or, more accurately, there is more attrition for females than males). It could be for a number of reasons - perhaps women are more likely to leave military service (why?). I think it probably has more to do with the opportunities available to women over the course of their career in addition to the normative values that attempt to regulate female behavior. What's interesting is that the attrition rate for females in the officer corps is higher than in the enlisted ranks. I wasn't expecting that. Perhaps its due to the smaller number of billets and the up or out system for officers, and since combat arms are closed to women, that translates into less key development positions for female officers.

I haven't compared the Army to DoD average or to the other branches, but that can be forthcoming.

EDIT: Here are the numbers for race (the data are not differentiated by race):

O1-O3: 26.5% minority
O4-O6: 23.4% minority
O7-O10: 13.4%minority

E1-E4 27.0% minority
E5-E6 34.0% minority
E7-E9 46.7% minority

What are your theories? If all else is equal (i.e. if race or sex doesn't matter, only merit) why do we have such skewed data on female and minority pay grades?

[JMA]

You are a reservist, right?

Because the military isn't a special or elite class of society. It's not independent from the political-economic system of the country. It has changed, and will change, as the country changes. It's really only a question of how painful the military will make it for itself.

Insofar that military selectivity is based upon the merits necessary for effectively fighting and winning the nation's wars, policies and practices of exclusion and discrimination (i.e. phyical ability, mental or emotional health) are necessary. However, the military still retains vestiges of normative-driven discriminatory practices, among which is included the exclusion of women from combat positions. Another major one surrounds the treatment of PTSD and mental health. It's these norms, which are fiercely guarded but ultimately unrelated to the ability to fight and win wars, that undermine the military's capabilities to do so, and also causes unnecessary friction within the ranks and with the civilian population. And as I've pointed out earlier and elsewhere, the demographics of the country are changing rapidly. It's becoming more diverse, more urban, less religious, more social, and more independent. These are not easily translated into the current military culture.

There is somewhere a minimally required base of knowledge, skills, and abilities to be an "effective" soldier/airman, et al in the modern combat environment. And I very much doubt it has anything to do with race, ethnicity, religion, gender, sex, sexual preference or that it approximates to that of the 19th and early 20th centuries, upon which the model of our military is based. And it's from structure that culture is produced, not vice versa, meaning that a change in military culture first requires a change in structure. And that begins with dismantling the unnecessary discriminatory practices and suppressing those destructive norms that obstruct's the military's ability to adapt to the current social-political environment of the country. The geographical and demographic patterns of enlistments indicate this will be difficult from within the military institution; which only means that it will be (painfully) imposed by the political leadership rather than pre-empted by forward thinking military leaders.

So if it's the case that military knowledge, skill, or ability on the modern battlefield has nothing to do with any of the identities named above, then we have some serious questions to answer as to why there is significant social-economic divergence between the civilian population and the military. Even though the military is self-selective, which can be overcome through stronger institutional emphasis on education before and during service, self-selection is only part of the story; the other part of the story is how social structure filters a segment of society for military service through economic or social systems - why are African-Americans dispropotionately represented in the ranks? Is it because of "African-American" values (whatever they are) more closely align with the military's values than Asians and Hispanics (Paul Ryan might disagree...)?

Senior leaders need to have this kind of dialogue amongst themselves, with the public, and with the political leadership to identify exactly where the points of friction are located.