Thursday, July 06, 2006

Youth Kills?

I was looking through a simple statistical analysis of the first 2000 soldiers killed. You can also find a database of those killed as individuals.

There are hints of minor things like overrepresentation of negros in the military and the a blip of military in Iraq dying of drowning but the 2 things that really struck me were;

1) The overrepresentation of males dying in Iraq. This might be due to more females being in non combat roles perhaps?

2) Being young really kills you in Iraq. The youngest age grp (which is also the smallest age group in the military) and to a lesser degree the second youngest dominate deaths. Why? The inexperience? The risk taking?

6 comments:

Trias said...

Here it's more PC to say 'Aborigine' than 'black'.

Yes i think that covers it. It's seen as a means of escaping poverty. Even so the overrepresentation is only modest

dreamkatcha said...

I think it's a bit optimistic to say that minorities are over-represented in the services because the environment is now 'friendlier'.

Statistics show (www.maec.org/natstats.html) that blacks for example fair worse than whites at school and generally occupy a lower socio-economic status. To someone with limited opportunities for well paid employment, the army must look like a safe bet.

dreamkatcha said...

I'm implying that the army is anything but a friendly environment in which to make a living. I couldn't say if it's actually got any worse.

The army trains people by way of bullying and soul-destroying humiliation. You could argue this is entirely necessary to create hardened warriors - and I'd probably agree - but this is really beside the point. It's a hostile environment for white people, let alone minorities who have the added burden of contending with institutional racism. Women are minorities in this setting too, and are frequently subject to masogynistic verbal and sexual abuse. The bravest ones take their tormenters to court and face the lottery of having the case thrown out on the basis that they are too weak to cope with 'normal', harmless banter and rough-housing.

I wasn't casting aspersions on black people, just stating the facts - that in general and for whatever reasons they do not leave school on an equal footing with white people and often are disadvantaged from the outset in economic terms too.

The army is by no means a cushy option (in fact I'd say it must be hell emotionally and physically), though to someone with no qualifications or specialist practical skills it must seem like the *only* option. I can't think of any other jobs you can enter with no education, earn a reasonable wage and work your way up at the expense of your employer.

dreamkatcha said...

Well you've convinced me that opportunities for bettering yourself are available to those who know what they want to do and are aware of all the funding options on the table.

As I see it, the reason fewer disadvantaged people take this route compared with entering the military comes down to the disparity in recruitment techniques.

Military PR reps pro-actively and agressively tour schools, shopping centres and so on to sway young people who are uncertain of what their future entails. They have specific targets to meet and so will tell them whatever they want to hear in order to get their signature. Want to become president? No problem, we can help you do it!

Going it alone - albeit with government funding - requires a lot more determination and effort on the part of the student. No-one from Multi-Million-Dollar Corporation X is going to hold your hand and groom you to become the next CEO. Why would they bother when they can simply cream off the people who have already completed their education under their own steam? Those with privileged backgrounds and connections are always going to win the race.

Here in the UK it's child's play to get a student loan too, but - rightly so - not everyone sees this as a free pass into well paid employment. You can go to uni, spend a fortune geting a degree and still not be able to find a job afterwards. Many people avoid higher education altogether so they aren't saddled with huge debts if they find themselves in this situation.

Lots of graduates are in this predicament precisely because there has been a state-funded push to get more people into higher education. There are only so many graduate jobs to go round no matter how well educated you happen to be.

The same isn't true of the military, especially given our simultaneous occupation of so many far flung corners of the globe. Soldiers are dying faster than they can be recruited so it's no wonder the military will bend over backwards to welcome kids into the fold.

Trias said...

If the escape from poverty is so very easy more people would escape it. Perhaps the money is available but it doesn't change the results.

In Australia you can get access to a degree in poverty. But you get a very fat debt for it and frankly a degree is not always an escape from poverty. Not only that there’s terrible cover for other costs. Things like eating books etc.

Military 'boot camp' being harsh isn't just "an anti-military caricature" it's ingrained in general societal belief through movies, books even pr0n. Hell, there are corporates taking emulated boot camps in corporate 'bonding' exercises.

Dreamkatcha, John has been in the military he is going to know something about it.

My father gave me this impression of boot camp. Keep in mind he’s Aussie not Brit or US and it was some time ago. It’s physically gruelling with many fitness goals. This includes a lot of running around marching and obstacle courses. It attempts to bond the soldiers to work together. It is friendly amongst peers. There is quite a bit of broken military law. There are frequent early wakings. There are efforts to make things unpredictable. There is heavy regulation and uniformity ie sameness. There are very strict rules on keeping the quarters and equipment. So strict many soldiers did not sleep on the bed because it was hard to make it to standard. Yelling and screaming is common. Domination of higher rank and submission of lower rank are emphasized. Luxuries are minimised. Competition is maximised.

AFSister said...

The US doesn't have a lot of females in combat roles for a variety of reasons- esp. in the Middle East. We have a culture of protecting our women, even in the military, so they are weapons qualified but rarely see "action". Although, we have had women receive the Silver Star for their actions under fire while in Iraq, so that culture is rapidly changing.

Gollum and John have answered the other questions about the Army being the easy way out for socio-economic reasons, and John answered the youth question. It's the same reason that inexperienced drivers get into so many accidents- they're young... and inexperienced. You can train the hell out of a dog, but until the dog reacts instinctively, it's still in training. Same thing with a soldier, except that the survival instinct comes with on-the-job experience in a war zone. Very dangerous stuff- but you know what? They all knew that when they signed up. Every last one.