What percentage of Hispanics, Blacks and Caucasians are on force in Iraq?

Question

My mom was just wondering.

Answer 1

I've always heard that minorities are overrepresented in the Army, but not as much in the other branches - it's an interesting question. It's hard to tell how many are on force. You could start with the racial makeup of soldiers living in our military bases, which is easy to find on the Internet, and figure from there.

Just three mid-East Coast Army bases as examples:

- In 2000, Fort Lee, Virginia was home to 7,269 people. That's soldiers and their families, but you should keep in mind that many of our soldiers, sailors, and airmen live and work off-base. 47% of Fort Lee's population was African-American, and 39% white. Hispanics and Latinos of any race* are about 11%. * "Hispanic" is a linguistic and cultural group, not a race.

- Fort Bragg, in 2000, was 29,183 strong. The racial/ethnic breakdown there was: 58% white, 25% black, 15% Hispanic.

- In 2000, there were 7,176 persons living at Fort Belvoir, Virginia. About 56% were white, 32% were black, and 10% Hispanic or Latino.

Compare these numbers to the United States population nationwide average of 75% white, 12% black, and 12% Hispanic. Comparatively few white people join the army, but black people are over-represented by at least double, in some instances about quadruple! Hispanics, it seems are under-represented at these bases, but not as much as white people.

Okay, you say, that's just three bases in Virginia and North Carolina. Well, in Virginia in 2000, the statewide racial breakdown was about 76% white, 21% black, and 5% Hispanic. In North Carolina it was 75%, 22%, and 5% respectively. This evens things out just a little for black people, but white people are still drastically under-represented. Most striking is that Hispanics are totally over-represented, by double or triple!

You know, I can't say how many of what racial groups are in the other branches . . . but I'd bet that the breakdown isn't as skewed from the nationwide average as much as it is in the Army. Of all the branches, the Army needs the most grunts, bears the brunt of the casualties, and requires the least qualifications. Frankly, the Army represents a fairly stable job for people who don't have a lot of other opportunities. This is a case of black people and hispanics taking the jobs that white people don't want, what anthropologists and sociologists call structural racism.

Answer 2

With out obtaining the information from the armed services, there is no way for sure that we could know this.However it is my guess that there is an extremely high percentage of Blacks and Hispanics in Iraq compared to Caucasians..
This was certainly the case during the Vietnam war.

Answer 3

I don't think it's a question of non-Caucasian "over representation", but rather a portrait of socioeconomic reality, an accurate representation of the economic forces that make the army's composition what it is. Traditionally, the "bulk" of armies were composed of those with lower levels of relative material affluence. This was especially true of the infantry. Here in Canada, the largest per capita percentage of armed service is held by the province of Newfoundland, which is financially one of the "least affluent" per captia and yet one of the smallest in overall population size.

Answer 4

Hello =)

I'm not sure of the actual numbers, but I recall reading during the beginning of the war that our Army in general was over-represented in terms of blacks and puerto-ricans, per-capita, but under-represented in white and mexican-americans..........

I suspect that it is the same now.......

I must say that in every war since WWI, Blacks and Puerto Ricans have done more than their share....I truly salute them for fighting for a nation that does not always treat them so well......

Namaste,

--Tom

Answer 5

thirty three and a third of each.