Avatar | Flower Delivery Service | Debt Consolidation Loan | Online Advertising | Credit Cards
The color of combat: The minority-disproportion myth [Archive] - FreeConservatives

PDA

View Full Version : The color of combat: The minority-disproportion myth


DesertFox
04-05-2006, 08:27 PM
Mackubin Thomas Owens
NRO
4 Oct 02


As I was channel-surfing late one evening last week, I was stopped in my tracks by the spectacle of Phil Donahue "interviewing" fellow master of pomposity Chris Matthews about the latter's views on a war with Iraq. Matthews was waxing indignant about how President Bush's Iraq policy had been hijacked by neoconservatives who had never served in uniform. (Of course, neither did Matthews.) He then claimed that in the event of a war with Iraq, racial minorities would suffer disproportionate casualties, since minorities make up nearly 30 percent of the military. Donahue heartily agreed.

This old saw also has found its way back into politics. A case in point is the Texas senatorial race. In a September 13 speech in San Antonio, the Democratic candidate, former Dallas mayor Ron Kirk, accused his Republican opponent, John Coryn, Texas Attorney-General, of being more favorably disposed toward war with Iraq because the children of the latter's wealthy friends would not be "in the front lines." "Look who would be doing the fighting," said Kirk. "They're disproportionately ethnic, they're disproportionately minority...I would be curious to see if we would go to war without any thought of loss if the first half-million kids to go came from families who made one million dollars."

The contention that in America's wars, minorities bear a disproportionate burden of the fighting and dying has long been a staple of Left-wing rhetoric since the Vietnam War. Even as late as the Gulf War in 1991, Jesse Jackson, addressing a largely black audience, claimed that "when that war breaks out, our youth will burn first."

But as Will Rogers once said, "it's not the things we don't know that get us into trouble. It's the things we know that just ain't true." The claim of disproportionate minority casualties wasn't true during the Vietnam War, where the record indicates that 86 percent of those who died during the war were white and 12.5 percent were black, from an age group in which blacks comprised 13.1 percent of the population. It is even less true today.

More (http://www.nationalreview.com/owens/owens100402.asp)

Native American
04-05-2006, 09:28 PM
As I was channel-surfing late one evening last week, I was stopped in my tracks by the spectacle of Phil Donahue "interviewing" fellow master of pomposity Chris Matthews about the latter's views on a war with Iraq. Matthews was waxing indignant about how President Bush's Iraq policy had been hijacked by neoconservatives who had never served in uniform.

Here's a hint: I spend more time (really!) pulling ticks off of my 4 little dogs than I do listening to Phllip Donahue and Christopher Matthews pontificate about anything.

No offense meant, but I would encourage you to do the same, DesertFox.

sunsettommy
04-06-2006, 07:40 AM
Wow what colossal mental giants they are!

The two twits must forget that todays Army is all VOLUNTEERS.

Volunteers who chose serving in the Military are people who are special in some way.

These two moonbats just wasting their mental potential.

Rhino
04-06-2006, 07:46 AM
These two moonbats just wasting their mental potential.What potential?

DesertFox
04-06-2006, 11:29 AM
Here's a hint: I spend more time (really!) pulling ticks off of my 4 little dogs than I do listening to Phllip Donahue and Christopher Matthews pontificate about anything.

No offense meant, but I would encourage you to do the same, DesertFox.No offense meant, NA, but if you look at the name accompanying the article I posted, you will see Mackubin Thomas Owens in bold script. Owens wrote the article. Owens, not I, listens to Donahue and Matthews.

You don't seriously think that whoever posts an item does whatever's described in that item, do you? :question:

No offense meant, but I would encourage you to pay more attention.

sunsettommy
04-06-2006, 09:43 PM
What potential?

Well they did reach some potential.

They are deep guano laying moonbats!

Borgia
04-17-2006, 01:47 PM
The NRO article was flawed. I mean, they look at proportions of where blacks are represented in the armed services which is interesting but not first gen data and NOT what the original claimants are questioning. They questioned casualty rates of minorities.

If they wanted to actually know the answer to the original claim, they need do nothing more than analyze the casualties for the current Iraq conflict. Why didn't they just do that since it would answer the question more definitely than mumbling about where minorities are located in the services?

I don't know, the claim may or may not be correct, but the NRO hardly did any work to figure out if it was true today.

And stats from Vietnam (under the draft and 30 years out of date) are hardly representative of today's army and the argument of Donahue/Matthews.

Rhino
04-17-2006, 02:14 PM
The original claims were made on the presumption that blacks were disproportionately represented in front line combat units. The rebuttal was based on the fact that such a presumption is not true, and never has been. In other words, the casualty rates were not being addressed, but rather the presumption of disproportionate casualties based on disproportionate race population amongst combat units. Based on that, the presumption was soundly refuted. Besides, it was a Wall Street Journal article that was cited as the source, not an original NRO claim.

I don't know how accurate their stats are, but this site cites the DoD:

http://www.deathsiniraq.com/casualties-race.html

Looks like blacks are only running about 10% of the casualties.

Rhino
04-17-2006, 02:21 PM
Rather decent analysis here too:

http://www.villainouscompany.com/vcblog/archives/2005/03/the_song_remain_2.html

Borgia
04-18-2006, 02:26 PM
All right, thanks Rhino. Why NRO did not use those figures is beyond me.