Eleanor Holmes Norton, Washington DC's non-voting delegate in the House of Representatives never wanted the United States to use its military to liberate Iraq because
Today we have a volunteer army whose race and class composition speaks to the absence of equal opportunity in civilian society. The middle and upper classes, for the most part, no longer serve and will not be on the front lines. African Americans are 25% of the U.S. Army, Hispanics are 9%, an army more than one third of whom are people of color.[aside: Hispanics are 12.5% of the U.S. population, so they're actually underrepresented in the military] Others have made similar claims that minorities are bearing a disproportionate share of casualties in Iraq.
It appears, however, that young African American men from Washington, DC might be safer going to war than staying at home.
According to this week's story from Scripps Howard News Service, there are 140,000 troops in Iraq, and there have been 286 fatalities from all causes since the war began in March (about 24 weeks ago). That gives us an annualized death rate of 443 per 100,000. Only about half of these deaths (147) were in combat, for a combat death rate of 228 per 100,000.
According to Center for Disease Control / National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, there were 21,836 young black men (age 18-30) in Washington DC in 2000, the latest year that mortality data is available. The total number of deaths in this group from all causes was 132, with 95 homicides. i.e. the death rate for this group was 604 per 100,000 and the murder rate was 435 per 100,000.
In other words, a young black male soldier from Washington DC would have been 36% more likely to die by staying at home than by serving in active duty in the Iraq war, and almost twice as likely to be murdered at home than to be killed in combat. Yes, that's horribly sad, but it puts a few things in perspective.
Meanwhile, what is Eleanor Holmes Norton doing to save the lives of the young men in her district who would be better off going to war than staying at home? She is fighting against school choice. Yeah, that'll do it.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at September 03, 2003 07:01 AMGood point, good research.
I hope such blop points make it more into the mainstream -- maybe you should send this to Glenn?
My first time here, looks like you've been busy for awhile.
Posted by: Tom Grey on September 3, 2003 01:48 AMhttp://www.usatoday.com/usatonline/20030121/4794964s.htm
"''If anybody should be complaining about battlefield deaths, it is poor, rural whites,'' says Charles Moskos, a military sociologist at Northwestern University in Illinois."
Posted by: ChildMolestHER on September 3, 2003 11:27 AMNorton's reference to black troops being over-represented on the "front lines" is simply false. The 25% figure she cites is accurate for overall Army enlistment. However, black troops are actually under-represented in rifle companies, and those are the guys fighting on the front lines (Norton is either ignorant of this or ignores it because it is an inconvenient fact). If Norton wishes to argue for greater black representation in front line combat units, fine. But she should get her facts straight.
Posted by: F.A. Jacobsen on September 3, 2003 02:58 PMAre those stats for DC over a year's time? Our soldiers haven't been in Iraq for a year. I agree that some context is necessary, but perhaps we oughtn't downplay the danger of a combat zone, even one that we so handily dominate.
Posted by: zach_attack on September 3, 2003 07:46 PMzach_attack:
notice that the figure given is an *annualized* death rate, thus it can accurately be compared to the annual death rate in DC. Of course, it is not a completely fair comparison because many of the "victims" of gun violence in DC are in fact engaging in illegal and/or risky activities, such as drug dealing, gang activities, etc. Our soldiers are risking their lives serving their country.
Funny thing though, DC has the strictest gun control laws in the country, but consistently rank high in murder rate. Perhaps guns really aren't the problem.
See:
http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/20030724-075510-1729r.htm
Instead of being repretitive, ditto to F.A. Jacobsen's comment.
The reason blacks are over-represented in the non-combat areas of the services is that they can gain skills there that are valuable. In this the Armed Forces are doing for minorities what public education has not and cannot-namely give them a real education, skills and a leg up on the economic ladder.
Posted by: Dave S on September 4, 2003 01:56 AMAnother interesting angle is to compare US casualties with the casualty rate in civilian heavy industry, at least among those better corporations who are prepared to publish their safety statistics.
Click on
http://www.tallrite.com/weblog/archives/july03.htm#USCasualtiesinIraqvsIndustry
Though the death rate is undoubtedly worse in Iraq (40 per 100 million man-hours) than the best of industry (5 per 100m m-hrs) we are not talking about totally different ball parks.
And interestingly, the injury rate in Iraq (2.4 per million man-hours) is a lot better than much of industry, which is indicative of a well-managed operation in Iraq.
I'm afraid F.A. Jacobsen does not appear to have read Norton's remarks carefully. She did not say blacks were overrepresented on the front lines, she implied the lower classes were and, as far as I know, that's correct. Her facts are straight.
It is sadly common on both sides of the debate to engage in sloppy knee-jerk argumentation like this. Instead of taking the trouble to understand clearly what she said and responding to it (if necessary), you assume she's just repeating some common canard that you have a ready-made comeback for.
Posted by: TomP on September 4, 2003 06:32 AMYeah, that USA Today article linked to above is a classic example of the unintentional hilarity of PC sensibilities. After dispelling the false idea that blacks and Hispanics are over-represented in frontline positions, the writer immediately launches into hand-wringing:
"The reasons for the racial divide are unclear, but several theories have emerged, including lingering racism in some quarters of the military . . . ."
So let's get this straight -- it's racist if minorities are OVER-represented on the frontlines, but it's also racist if they are UNDER-represented. Obviously, those people who say that we can't ever make the minority activists happy are off their rockers. Sheesh.
Posted by: Eddgra Fallin on September 4, 2003 10:42 AMTomP,
You obviously read only what you wanted to read. Yes, she does talk about class, but she specifically talks about blacks, Hispanics, and other "people of color." Clearly, this is her main beef. If there were no blacks on the frontlines, she would be complaining about how racism was keeping blacks from obtaining the sorts of military positions that most often lead to promotions.
Posted by: Eddgra Fallin on September 4, 2003 10:46 AMI dont think they got the real Saddam, details are on:
http://www.angelfire.com/oz/poll/
Paying per click is cost-effective advertising at ppcmachine.com. Pay Per Click Advertising
Posted by: Pay Per Click Advertising on September 9, 2004 03:19 PMLife is a foreign language; all men mispronounce it.
Posted by: breasts enlargement on November 2, 2004 05:51 AM