• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Exploding myths about the US military

a_majoor

Army.ca Legend
Inactive
Reaction score
33
Points
560
We all see it in the press, redneck soldiers, minorities used as cannon fodder, inability to meet recruiting targets and uneducated soldiers. (come to think of it, we hear it about ourselves as well)

Of course, when you shine the cold, hard light of truth on the matter....

http://combatjumpstar.blogspot.com/2006/06/myths-about-us-military.html

Myths about the US Military

Over the last few years, I've read and had repeated to me by anti war, anti military elements, many myths about today's Military. Predictably, I've also seen plenty of these myths advanced by the MSM as well. I thought I'd share a few that I'm sure we've all seen and heard numerous times, and then give you the actual facts that contradict these myths. The next time you have someone come up and start spitting any of these at you, hopefully you'll remember this post, and be able to hit them with real facts.

All or most soldiers are rednecks from the South.

In reality, at the end of fiscal year 2003, there were 176,408 soldiers in the force. Of these, 100,467 came from the North or West. 75,941 Came from the South or South West. From my own experience, in my battalion, the only "Southern" states that were highly represented were Texas and Virginia. I personally was born in Michigan, and lived in Canada for about 20 years until I joined the Army. A large number of the people I knew were from Ohio or California. There were two, yes two soldiers from states other than these in the South. In fact, many Virginians don't even consider themselves Southerners. The fact is, the Military is not made up of a bunch of "good ol' boys" from the South.

Minorities are being used as "cannon fodder" on the front lines.

I've heard this one plenty, and in my opinion, it's the dumbest one. It's simply a ploy to call up the Vietnam war, when minorities actually were overrepresented in frontline combat positions. This calling up the ghost of the Vietnam war is a favorite of the anti-war crowd. First off is the obvious fact that it's an all volunteer force, so people sign up on their own, and choose their job on their own.

But let's look at some other facts. The fact is that as of 2006, white Americans made up well over half of the total military force, coming in at 67%, and have so far suffered 74% of the deaths in the GWOT. Minorities make up 33% of the total force, and have suffered only 26% of the deaths in the GWOT. This is due to the fact that an even higher percentage of white American's, over 70%, choose a combat arms role in the Military, and the percentage of white Americans in Special Operations is even higher, over 75%, while for whatever reason, minority soldiers tend to go into support occupations such as health services, which tend to feature valuable job training over bonuses. This is not to say anything about any particular group.

Hell, I always thought the guys that didn't go into the infantry or other combat arms must have been smarter than we were. They sure didn't have to jump out of a perfectly good airplane then go slogging through the mountains or desert for weeks on end with 100+ pounds on their back!

Soldiers are uneducated, or less educated than their peers outside the Military

Pretty much completely untrue. Between 93 and 95% of current soldiers have a high school diploma, compared to 75% for their civilian counterparts. And according to numbers released by the Defense Department, “Nearly two-thirds of today’s recruits are drawn from the top-half of America in math and verbal aptitudes.” Additionally, soldiers are all taught to be leaders, and to operate independently.

From my own experience, I had one soldier who was previously a registered nurse. Two others in my company had IQ's over 150 and were members of Mensa. Two more were had law degrees. Several were published authors and poets. And that was just the enlisted soldiers. One of the Platoon Leaders was a mormom, a graduate of BYU, and had been a missionary in tPhilippinesnes. One was a Russian, who had served in the Russian Army, then came here and completed college. Of course, most were West Point graduates, which is one of the most selective schools in the nation. And these were all Infantry guys. Imagine the soldiers in a computer field or something equally technical. In truth, soldiers of today have to know so many skills that it's ridiculous to think that they are in an way "uneducated."

Recruiting is down

Actually, it's not. In four of the last 5 years, the Army, which usually struggles a little more in recruiting, has met and exceeded it's goal for active duty recruits. For 2004, the Army's active duty goal was 77,00. They exceeded that by nearly 600. During the same 5 year period, The Navy, Airforce, and Marine Corps met or exceeded their recruiting goal. Oh, by the way, they've all done that every year since the terrorist attacks of September 11th. As for the numbers for this year. The Army made 104% of it's goal for March. The Air Force and Navy, 100%. The Marines, 102%.

These are the ones that I hear the most. As you can see, they're all pretty much rubbish. I'm sure you've noticed that the anti-war/anti military crowd thinks they've found something, they like to stick with it, even if it's proven to be completely untrue. So hopefully the next time one of these people come up to you and give you one of these lines, you'll have the ammo to at least shut them up for a few seconds.
 
Sounds like a solid guy.  Think you can recruit CJS to pop over here from time to time?  :salute:
 
Anyone with a site and computer can make up numbers and statements, I didn't see any sources listed there , where did he come up with these "facts" ?
 
tamouh said:
Anyone with a site and computer can make up numbers and statements, I didn't see any sources listed there , where did he come up with these "facts" ?

Just interested, or are you disputing them?
 
I'd claim them uncredible due to the fact they lack any verifiable references. Obviously i'm not for nor against, but i'd request some references from the article poster.
 
tamouh said:
I'd claim them uncredible due to the fact they lack any verifiable references. Obviously i'm not for nor against, but i'd request some references from the article poster.

and if you think we need to request clarification from a_majoor, you obviously haven't bothered to research the person your questioning.
 
tamouh said:
Anyone with a site and computer can make up numbers and statements, I didn't see any sources listed there , where did he come up with these "facts" ?

From one crazy revolutionary to another ;) - believe it or not those are true.

*edit* And I'll take it:

Re: Recruiting - http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/2006/nr20060609-13224.html
Re: Demographics - http://usmilitary.about.com/od/joiningthemilitary/a/demographics.htm
Re: Cannon Fodder - go read Michael Yon - http://www.michaelyon-online.com/
 
recceguy:
and if you think we need to request clarification from a_majoor, you obviously haven't bothered to research the person your questioning.

I think u may want to read my posts again to know whom i'm referring to.


I'm glad you asked!

http://www.lib.umich.edu/govdocs/stmil.html  (An excellent and balanced reference btw)

First link. there are some facts in his post correct especially regarding High School education, but others incorrect regarding states recruitment numbers.

couchcommander: not entirely, but there are basis for it for sure.

Note: The whole purpose here is to add credible source, I don't believe anyone with a blog should really claim a fact is 100% true or not without providing sources. I'm not siding with anyone here, just wanted to add credibility to the blog post.
 
tamouh said:
I think u may want to read my posts again to know whom i'm referring to.


I'm glad you asked!

http://www.lib.umich.edu/govdocs/stmil.html   (An excellent and balanced reference btw)

First link. there are some facts in his post correct especially regarding High School education, but others incorrect regarding states recruitment numbers.

couchcommander: not entirely, but there are basis for it for sure.

Note: The whole purpose here is to add credible source, I don't believe anyone with a blog should really claim a fact is 100% true or not without providing sources. I'm not siding with anyone here, just wanted to add credibility to the blog post.

Then do so by posting supporting references. Sounds more like you want to discredit the blog at this point.
 
Nice brutal-to-navigate site linkage.  :p
How about the link to the specific information you found on recruiting targets.  I just burned 15 minutes looking and couldn't find any.  Lots of stuff on existing military, though. 
Tamouh, if you aren't refuting the facts, then why do you bring it up?
Arguing for the sake of arguing.  Don't we have a term for that?
 
I'd claim them uncredible due to the fact they lack any verifiable references. Obviously i'm not for nor against, but i'd request some references from the article poster.


Click the link supplied in the original post, scroll half-way down the page into the comments, and you'll see an anonymous poster has called him for sources on there. He then happily provides 6 links as sources for his info.
 
~RoKo~ said:
Click the link supplied in the original post, scroll half-way down the page into the comments, and you'll see an anonymous poster has called him for sources on there. He then happily provides 6 links as sources for his info.

...and that, I think, takes care of that.
 
tamouh,

you are rapidly wearing out even MY patience with your blatant trolling. And, as is well-known and documented, I am the most patient of men. I've gone to bat for you, before, but you pretty much stabbed me in the back.
 
you are rapidly wearing out even MY patience with your blatant trolling. And, as is well-known and documented, I am the most patient of men. I've gone to bat for you, before, but you pretty much stabbed me in the back

Sorry that you're feeling this way. I'm attempting my best to walk a very fine line in this forum while speaking my opinion of several of the items you've brought up.

In a balanced view, there is nothing improper about my post above. Somebody made a claim that was taken for granted with no proper investigation of any references or sources. I brought that matter to the attention of the person who quoted the original blog.

Prior to my first post here and prior to any investigations on my part on this subject, I didn't know the blog post was accurate or not and I had no preference to neither sides the blog post was referring to. But thought in the best interest of this forum and everyone to provide credible references. Additionally, the reference i've provided is full with wealthy information and statistics on many US military subjects.

I don't know how you reach the conclusion this is trolling. Trolling is putting information with no credible support for the only purpose of ignitig an argument. Everything i've mentioned in this post and others backed by credible sources or personal experiences.
 
Sorry I'm late to the party, the computer ate my post when I tried to put it up.

Actually, it's not. In four of the last 5 years, the Army, which usually struggles a little more in recruiting, has met and exceeded it's goal for active duty recruits. For 2004, the Army's active duty goal was 77,00. They exceeded that by nearly 600. During the same 5 year period, The Navy, Airforce, and Marine Corps met or exceeded their recruiting goal. Oh, by the way, they've all done that every year since the terrorist attacks of September 11th. As for the numbers for this year. The Army made 104% of it's goal for March. The Air Force and Navy, 100%. The Marines, 102%.

Recruiting goals are not a meaningful measure of anything, despite it being thrown around all the time. Recruitment goals for the various services are not static, they are revised throughout the year in response to market conditions and whether the goals for the last months were being met. I exceed my standards for PT every month, which isn't hard since I'm the one who sets the standard. It is misleading to present them as evidence for increased enthusiasm and interest in the armed forces.

A look at active duty strength levels for all branches:

Oct 2001 - 1,157,947
Oct 2002 - 1,180,747
Oct 2003 - 1,195,652
Oct 2004 - 1,183,075
Oct 2005 - 1,145,951
Apr 2006 - 1,141,234

Note that strength levels have dropped 4.5% from the period Oct 2003-April 2006, while it had risen by a similar number from 2001-2003. I was not able to find similar numbers for reserve force, but from 2003 to 2004, the numbers for selected reserve( I gather this excludes IRR and standby reserve)  dropped from 875,072 to 851,395. The US armed forces has gotten smaller since starting the Iraq war. Is this because the situation in Iraq has stabilized to an extent that the armed forces can scale back their man power requirements? I doubt it. Considering that there are new programs in place in the US to attract and train air force and navy pers. for the combat arms trades, I'm going to guess that the recruitment numbers for combat arms trades are probably lower than ideal. If anyone has any numbers to prove or disprove that, I'm curious. 

The budget estimate  for advertising, recruiting, and examining in FY 2006 is $1433.1Mil, while it $1343.2 mil  in FY 2003 and $1238.2 mil in FY 2001, which, after adjusting for inflation, results in a negligible increase, but I would like to see a breakdown of recruiting cost per recruit, considering that the size of the armed forces has shrunk. Also, there is a common perception that recruiters are becoming more aggressive and proactive in their efforts. Of course, none of this factors in any monetary incentives brought in for the recruits themselves. If anyone wants to start an audit for that, I’ll be grateful.
Source: DOD comptroller

All the above seems to indicate that the Iraq war is having some negative effect on recruiting numbers. I can't say how much, but it's defintely not the rosy picture that the author is trying to convey.



and if you think we need to request clarification from a_majoor, you obviously haven't bothered to research the person your questioning.

I believe the term for that is "ipse dixits". Research never hurts.
 
tamouh, you didn't simply "bring it to the attention of the person quoting the original blog", you openly inferred that it might all be fabrication:

tamouh said:
Anyone with a site and computer can make up numbers and statements, I didn't see any sources listed there , where did he come up with these "facts" ?
 
Britney: Interesting numbers, thanks for sharing your findings. There were also another post on this forum talking about recruiting numbers which at the end everyone seems to have agreed even though the number of new recruits is good, many drop off the service after few months due to either lack of interest, medical or other conditions.

Michael:

I'll quote a_major initial post:
We all see it in the press, redneck soldiers, minorities used as cannon fodder, inability to meet recruiting targets and uneducated soldiers. (come to think of it, we hear it about ourselves as well)

Of course, when you shine the cold, hard light of truth on the matter....

The link was presented as a truthful fact though it lacked proper references. In addition, the link quoted was for a blog post, a far fetch from being anything official or credible. If the link was for a national media outlet or a non-profit organization, I'd not have bothered to comment on the initial post. But since the blog present itself as a fact, I'd to research the net to either support or debuff the blog itself.

As we are all aware the Internet has brought new meaning to credible sources. I'm finding the internet more as a source for people opinions than an actual source of valid information.
 
tamouh said:
If the link was for a national media outlet or a non-profit organization, I'd not have bothered to comment on the initial post.

Given the inaccuracies that have been rebutted by the Ruxted Group, I would say that the national media and npo's would be amongst the highest of suspect groups.
 
Back
Top