US Army: “Too Many Whites in Leadership Positions”

It’s getting harder and harder to support the US Army or any other branch of the military. That’s not a very establishment-conservative thing to say, but then again, the military is becoming less and less conservative.

Uncle Sam


U.S. Army sociologists are worried that a lack of black officers leading its combat troops will have detrimental effect on minorities and lead to fewer black officers in top leadership posts.

What worries me is that this is considered worrisome. I don’t think Russia’s armed forces are concerned with their lack of Asian leaders, nor China’s armed forces concerned with their lack of white leaders.

“The issue exists. The leadership is aware of it,” Brig. Gen. Ronald Lewis told USA Today on Thursday. “The leadership does have an action plan in place. And it’s complicated.”

Action plan? An affirmative action plan, perhaps?

The Army reports that only 10 percent of its active-duty officers are black, which has contributed to its dearth of black officers leading soldiers with occupational specialties in infantry, armor and artillery.

Ten percent is not that far off from the percentage of blacks in America (14 percent). And we couldn’t reasonably expect that the percentage of black officers would perfectly match the national numbers.

But the biggest clue that the Army is not discriminatory against blacks in leadership positions? There are blacks in leadership positions! Why would discrimination be the reason that only 10 percent of active-duty officers are black? If the Army were discriminatory, that number would be zero percent, and if they wanted to avoid any and all accusations of discrimination, that number would be 18 percent to match the percentage of active-duty blacks in the Army. The fact that it falls somewhere in the middle indicates that there simply weren’t as many blacks who passed the test of leadership as there were whites. Go figure.

And yet:

“It certainly is a problem for several reasons,” Col. Irving Smith, director of sociology at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, told USA Today. “First we are a public institution. And as a public institution we certainly have more of a responsibility to our nation than a private company to reflect it. In order to maintain their trust and confidence, the people of America need to know that the Army is not only effective but representative of them.”

How will the Army have the country’s trust when it begins bypassing white people, the largest demographic group in the country, to instead promote blacks who, without this “[affirmative] action plan,” would not have climbed the ranks?

The Army is not an institution put in place to “represent” people. That’s what lawyers, talent agents, and politically correct kids’ TV shows are for. The Army is there to defend America against other countries’ military threats. Period.