« | »

Too Many White Male Officers In Military

From a race and gender obsessed Associated Press:

Report says too many whites, men leading military

By Pauline Jelinek, Associated Press Mon Mar 7, 2011

WASHINGTON – The U.S. military is too white and too male at the top and needs to change recruiting and promotion policies and lift its ban on women in combat, an independent report for Congress said Monday.

Seventy-seven percent of senior officers in the active-duty military are white, while only 8 percent are black, 5 percent are Hispanic and 16 percent are women, the report by an independent panel said, quoting data from September 2008.

These officers can’t help being white and male. They were born that way.

By the way, where is there any mention of sexual orientation? Where is the demand for more homosexual officers?

One barrier that keeps women from the highest ranks is their inability to serve in combat units. Promotion and job opportunities have favored those with battlefield leadership credentials.

The report ordered by Congress in 2009 calls for greater diversity in the military’s leadership so it will better reflect the racial, ethnic and gender mix in the armed forces and in American society.

In other words this report was ordered by a Democrat Congress. Therefore it is just as non-partisan as the reports Democrats order up from the Congress Budget Office.

Efforts over the years to develop a more equal opportunity military have increased the number of women and racial and ethnic minorities in the ranks of leadership. But, the report said, "despite undeniable successes … the armed forces have not yet succeeded in developing a continuing stream of leaders who are as diverse as the nation they serve."

"This problem will only become more acute as the racial, ethnic and cultural makeup of the United States continues to change," said the report from the Military Leadership Diversity Commission, whose more than two dozen members included current and former military personnel as well as businessmen and other civilians.

What else would a group calling itself a "Military Leadership Diversity Commission" come up with? By the way, would this be an argument for allowing more and more illegal aliens in our country?

If we have to have everything from the military to the President’s cabinet to the Supreme Court exactly reflect the country’s "ethnic makeup," maybe we should have a little more control our ethnic makeup.

Having military brass that better mirrors the nation can inspire future recruits and help create trust among the general population, the commission said.

Of course this is just bureaucrat speak for ‘quotas.’ And everyone knows how much enforcing racial and gender quotas improves any organization. After all, it’s not like the military is exempt from social experimentation.

Among recommendations is that the military eliminate policies that exclude women from combat units, phasing in additional career fields and units that they can be assigned to as long as they are qualified. A 1994 combat exclusion policy bans women from being assigned to ground combat units below the brigade level even though women have for years served in combat situations

Remember how critics were laughed at when they said that putting women in the military would eventually lead to them serving in combat? Oh, how they were mocked.

Stretching the definition of diversity, the report also said the military must harness people with a greater range of skills and backgrounds in, for instance, cyber systems, languages and cultural knowledge to be able to operate in an era of new threats and to collaborate with international partners and others.

Translation:  the military also needs more Muslims. – And we have seen how well that has worked out, too.

This article was posted by Steve on Tuesday, March 8th, 2011. Comments are currently closed.

17 Responses to “Too Many White Male Officers In Military”

  1. Enthalpy says:

    What outcomes are they expecting when process trumps substance? Off to the Home for the Terminally Bewildered with all of them! If we allow them to continue, we deserve to be there with them.

  2. TerryAnne says:

    Part of the military’s problem is because of crap like this. Promoting people because of quotas and feel-good handouts. The military has become nothing more than a social experiment for half-wit socialists.

    And people wonder why I’m probably bailing next February after 14 years…

  3. wardmama4 says:

    Yes, what a crock – it is why we have the Ft Hood shootings – too many people too afraid to do the right thing – when the person in question is a _____(muslim, gay, woman) Sorry – while I agree on many levels to women in the military – it must be across the board or not at all. And it was initiated (like most things governmental) improperly. My daughter was a Marine – she did well and served well for two terms and went back when recalled under OEF. That wasn’t true for the majority of women she served with – they did everything they could to avoid their recall.

    Now we have the Hasan Akbar (born Mark Kools) shooting in the 101st Airborne (2003) and the Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad (Carlos Leon Bledsoe) shooting (Little Rock Recruiting Station) in 2009 and then Ft Hood shooting in Nov of 2009 – Nidal Hasan (born in VA, according to wikipedia – did not ‘radicalize until 2001). Hasan & Muhammad both credit Anwar Al-Awlaki (born & college educated in the US) for their jihadist inspiration.

    Seems to me – that unlike the Dept of Homeland Security & TSA – al-Qaeda has learned and adjusted to create a new strategy to their war of terrorism on the US – and are using home grown radical extremists who happen to be islamic.

    And thus the Dept of Homeland security will now force every single white American to show their SS card when they sign up for college or some such useless nonsense.

  4. untrainable says:

    Notice there is no mention of performance. Aren’t we supposed to judge people for the content of their character… not the color of their skin? I would think in the case of the military, where lives are at stake, there should be at least some small place in the promotion process for actual performance and ability.

    If they want to turn the military into a reflection of the diversity of the American people, how many rapists, and serial killers, and drug users, and mentally disabled people, and tree huggers, and communists, and domestic terrorists, does that amount to per 1000 soldiers? Are we talking about the draft here? If there aren’t enough dwarfs in the military to reflect the dwarf population in the USA, are we going to draft them until there are? Will there be a lottery?

    The military isn’t supposed to be a representative body. We’re not talking about the racial make-up of the staff at Starbucks here. The military exists to protect us and our way of life no matter our skin color OR theirs! Personally, for that job I want the most qualified people running the show. Those with the most experience, training, and ability… not simply the darkest or lightest skin in the room. What if our military was being run like the DOJ? If the military officers suddenly said, “Well, I’m just going to protect ‘My People’.” The race war is the last thing soldiers should have to worry about.

  5. proreason says:

    Child molestors are under represented in the military. When will the madness stop?

  6. tranquil.night says:

    I agree. We need more patriots like Allen West.

    Oh wait sorry, that’s not the likes of whom the AP meant when they talked about inspiring future recruits and public trust. My bad.

  7. BannedbytheTaliban says:

    Looks like they just need to force more minorities to volunteer for OCS.

  8. pilgrim1949 says:

    Ahh yes, fond memories of my Air Force promotion cycles….the mandatory checkboxes for:

    * Gender (current, unsure, or in flux)
    * Ethnic group
    * Political affiliation (including major campaign recipients, listed by amount)
    * Primary lifesyle
    * Home planet or specific alternate universe

    All of these were of primary concern to ensure the proper mix (mixed up?) of each unit, superceding such old fashioned concepts as fighting readiness/effectiveness, unit cohesion, and all that rubbish. Surely this would guarantee at least a more sporting chance with any potential enemy as well.

    And if the time arose and some deficiency in the above was noted, a simple (minded???) shout of, “Time out! Halt the hostilities! We need to reshuffle our force composition to realign our diversity quotas before we can resume the battle!”

    Our enemies will be SOOOO impressed with our enlightened evolution that they will put down their weapons and softly applaud, politely waiting until we are again ready to resume the fight.

    Riiiiight. We’ll gallop forward on our unicorn cavalry flinging handfuls of pixie dust at them, singing a chorus or two of Kumbaya.

  9. Right of the People says:

    One thing I noted in my time in Uncle Sam’s Army (early 70s) there was a surprisingly little discrimination. We were all basically treated like fecal matter.

  10. JohnMG says:

    ….” And everyone knows how much enforcing racial and gender quotas improves any organization…….”

    Such as……Affirmative Action and the Presidency?

    And Steve……..that’s why we call it ‘the Government’ and not an organization. That should be obvious.

    And Right of the People…..One of the NICEST things I was called in boot camp was “Private Turd”. The other appelations were far too demeaning.

  11. Mae says:

    Lesson number one in how to lose every future and present war. The military is not an equal opportunity employer. Of course, equal opportunity without equal qualifications is a hallmark of the present Administration.

    Plus, being white is a crime, doncha know?

  12. oldpuppydixie says:

    By all means, lets DUMB DOWN the military and make it less competent!!! I mean, it’s not as though it really does any IMPORTANT work. Defending the US is a disgraceful assignment, after all. Everybody knows that!!! Then we can have military UNIONS!! You know…refuse to fight unless pension plans are sweetened every year!

  13. canary says:

    I was stunned to see an entire company on their arrival back from Afganistan. Hundreds of white soldiers in formation. There was a African American leader in front. I wasn’t looking for this, it just shouted out something was strange. The color of the soldiers did not match everyday life in the U.S.

    Another offer at high school for a couple of dozen children interested in technology (of approx 2000 students) to get to do some fun tech week, only this one specifically said they needed female minorities.
    And yet Obama says our future depends on high technology and environmental leadership.
    Yet, he always get’s his “fire” the bad teachers line out there, knowing the unions will stop that.
    After all, Obama was a teacher who taught a recycling paper class at Columbia one time.

    • canary says:

      I guess Obama will have to start the draft for minorities to line up the percentage to make the quotas. There is no loss of college opportunities. And why should women get paid more and climb higher in rank if they don’t fight combat.

      Obama has some Charlie Sheen syndrome in him, except for Obama prefers hugging men.

    • canary says:

      Someone gave me some “New American” magazines at a city meeting last night, and I just found an article

      “Feminizing American’s Fighting Force” by Dave Bobon

      The Military Leadership Diversity Commission recommended putting women into the combat roles, ignoring an exhaustive study recommending the opposite.

      http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/politics/6228-feminizing-americas-fighting-force

      Just my observations in past articles Gates is spineless to stand up to Obama, nor the U.S. military he leads.

  14. P. Aaron says:

    There are more idiot people in journalism than white people in command in the military.


« Front Page | To Top
« | »