April 10, 2007

Iraq After Four Years: The Death Gap

It's widely assumed that American minority soldiers are suffering a disproportionate number of deaths in the current war. Yet, according to iCasualites, 74,4% of all American fatal casualties in the Iraq war have been suffered by non-Hispanic whites. In 2004, non-Hispanic whites only made up 67% of the total population, and, more relevantly, only 61% of the 25-year-olds, which might be about the representative age of the fatalities.

So, young whites are dying in Iraq at a per capita rate 86% higher than young minorities. If you are wondering about how I calculated that, it's:

(74.41% / 61%) / (25.59% / 39%)

Even among journalists who can divide in their head, few keep in mind that you have to divide the rate for the majority by the rate for the minority. Instead, they tend to divide the rate for the majority by the rate for the national average: "Okay, 74% divided by 61% is, well, not that much greater than 1.00, so there's no story here." Of course, the rate for the majority will generally be fairly close to the national average, but that's not what people are interested in. They want to compare Group X versus Group Y, and so you have to divide by the minority rate, not the national average.

A big reason for the Death Gap is the use of IQ test cutoffs by the military, which used to be at the 30th percentile up through 2004. That disqualified a large fraction of blacks and about half of Hispanics from enlisting. The average IQ of enlistees was above the national average.


My published articles are archived at iSteve.com -- Steve Sailer

17 comments:

Anonymous said...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't minorities who go into the military generally join for pragmatic reasons, and so end up going into technical, noncombat fields to get post-military job skills. While in contrast, you get a lot more white guys going into infantry and other combat-oriented positions because they joined for reasons of patriotism or enchantment with the idea of being warriors?

tommy said...

Even among journalists who can divide in their head, few keep in mind that you have to divide the rate for the majority by the rate for the minority. Instead, they tend to divide the rate for the majority by the rate for the national average

This is, of course, incredibly simple math, but forget dividing in their head. Many of these moron journalists don't divide period. I wish I could find the story the other day that mentioned the high number of Latinos killed in this conflict. Journalists see dead Hispanics and they proceed to deduce that a disproportionate number of Hispanics have been killed.

Steve Sailer said...

Blacks tend to go into Army clerical positions because they see it as a path to a white collar job. (They also figured out Iraq was a shuck long before whites did.)

A fair number of Hispanics go into the Marine Corps because it's macho, but as you can see from the Death Gap, whites really like combat arms.

DYork said...

I say MAYBE. My problem is I don't trust the US state or federal government on race ID statistics.

I suspect many of the so called White casualties might be racially non-White Hispanics who self ID or are IDed by the government as White.

I've seen far to many state corrections department inmate photos by race on line to not be suspicious.

The people classified as White in the US prison system include people who look like Idi Amin and Caesar Chavez so long as they have a Hispanic name.

Weird.

Wavell said...

Wasn't this all covered by Ed Rubenstein at VDare?

http://www.vdare.com/rubenstein/070403_nd.htm

TabooTruth said...

Has the army ever come under attack for using IQ tests for selecting candidates, thereby leading to "discrimination"?

Has the army published literature which establishes the importance of IQ once and for all? That would be convenient.

As far as the deaths go, the disproportionate minorities argument is a good John Edwards sound byte, but no one challenges because that would bring up the IQ disparity issue?

Luke said...

I recently read James Webb's book on the Scots-Irish, Born Fighting, in which he makes the point that that group tends to be way over-represented in the real fighting done in all of America's wars, quite apart from whether the cause be good (WWII) or not so good (Civil War). His point is (and he bases it on personal family experience) that Scots-Irish like to fight. A recent biography of Andrew Jackson I just finished seemed to justify Webb's contention: that Jackson just plain liked to fight! Webb's novel, Fields of Fire depicts the same ethic in action in Vietnam; truly, and literally, gut-wrenching stuff, based on his personal experience as a platoon leader, and the only piece of war fiction I've ever managed to get into.

Anonymous said...

There was an article in the WSJ yesterday about a battalion of the 10th Mountain Division fighting in a remote part of Afghanistan. Of the three Army officers mentioned in the article, two were Ivy League grads (a first lieutenant U Penn alumnus, and the battalion commander, a lieutenant colonel Princeton alumnus). The third officer was a West Point grad.

There are some smart guys in the military, no doubt, but I have doubts about the efficacy of a few at the top. Two specific examples:

1) General Casey, who was inexplicably confirmed by Congress to be the next chief of staff of the army after presiding over a train wreck in Iraq for a couple of years -- and resisting any attempts to change strategy.

2) General Abizaid, who did the same thing, and has spun his wheels on useless hearts & minds stuff throughout the region.

The WSJ article was encouraging though, in that it showed some company and field grade officers blessed by common sense and the ability to change tactics when something isn't working.

Steve Sailer said...

The WWII vets from the 10th Mountain Division dominated the American ski mountain industry for most of the second half of the 20th Century. (Plus , Bob Dole was severely wounded in the 10th).

Anonymous said...

I always wanted to see a Band of Brothers type of thing about the college kids turned warriors of the 10th Mountain division that would somehow intersperse their wartime heroism with the amazing things they went on to do in civilian life. I mean, you had Bob Dole, Nike cofounder/legendary coach Bill Bowerman, father of the modern environmental movement David Brower, Vail founder Pete Seibert, and many others.

Anonymous said...

Steve, my assignment for you is to track down death rates by race for bungee jumping and sky diving.

Anonymous said...

Blacks are heavily represented in the Logistics/Combat Service Support. The stereotype of the black supply SGT is true. I don't recall any supply SGT that wasn't black when I was on active duty.

joshrandall said...

Keep the blacks "in the rear with the gear". Its much safer for all concerned. this is one situation where they dont complain about being in the back of the bus! The libel that "minorities" do the fighting and dying is a beloved trope of the libbies and the Hillary-rug-munching set. they despise white men anyway,especially the working class boys!

Anonymous said...

"they despise white men anyway,especially the working class boys!"

White men in the U.S. military are mostly middle class, suburban types.

Anonymous said...

This has always been true: Western Civilization has been built on a mountain of White Male Corpses (mostly young) since the beginning.

What most Liberals (and far too many pseudo-Libs) fail to realize is that the world is dangerous, full of nasty people who want to take your stuff. Killing or enslaving you in the process. This has always been the case and always will be the case.

The globalization process and the ability of even failed states like Pakistan and Iran and North Korea to get nuclear weapons means military spending and a strong military is NOT OPTIONAL.

Young white mostly middle class men go into the military because they have the most at stake: only a successful white middle class society has the hope of offering them a family.

Does anyone honestly think that the Feminized, feminist, Euro-eunuch societies of Europe offers the average young white male the opportunity for marriage, family, and same for his kids, particularly boys? Or that of Mexico, the rest of Latin America, or the Muslim World (bent on immigration and creeping Sharia Jihad)?

Of course not. So as usual the guys with the most at stake pay the heaviest prices.

As for the US Army, it's General Staff has usually been filled with second or third-raters. The Civil War was basically a floundering process until Lincoln found Grant and Sherman, and fortunately the Confederates did not pick Forrest but went the mediocre Lee. Meanwhile you had Lincoln's Quartermaster General refusing to by Henry's because they already had millions of single shot Muzzle Loaders.

Guys like Patton, Petraeus, Mitchell, "Gangster for Capitalism" Smedly Butler, etc. are the mavericks who threaten the peacetime Army and it's go-along-with-Congress mentality (since Congress not the White House or Pentagon) and are excluded until the crisis is severe.

Perhaps one of the best arguments for Iraq is that it has produced a crisis which is about the only thing that generates reform in the Military. Congress not the White House or Pentagon rules the Military because they hand out the money.

[Something Steve you've consistently missed in your commentary on Iraq -- how the Military has been in thrall to Congress throughout and how limited both Rumsfeld and Gates have been. Unless you've even marginally been involved in Defense Work you can't imagine how bureaucratic and inert most of the Military is and how compliant to 535 Members of Congress who pay out the money, and Defense careers afterwards, the entire Military is.]

We are just now seeing new stuff coming on to the battlefield, that had been around in concept form for years but absent a huge crisis would never see the light of day:

Networked Warfare: the average NCO can see UAV sensors, F-16 readouts, helicopters etc. and co-ordinate it to kill enemies dead.

UAV and other ground, water, etc. vehicles including throwable small robotic cameras and mini-UAVs that a unit can use to see what's around corners.

Dramatic improvements in body armor capable of stopping rifle rounds yet much much lighter.

Much better small arms including HK rifles that are more reliable than the AK-47, outrange it dramatically, and are extremely accurate.

Replacements for the Humvee like the Cougar or Grizzly that are extremely resistant to IED/EFP attacks.

Sensors that can tell in one second where a shot came from (compass heading, angle of elevation, distance).

It's important for stuff like this to be developed, because Globalization is not stable. It requires lots of military force to keep pirates, raiders, and tribes from overwhelming the civilized world. Even a place like Pakistan has nukes (a collection of tribes and rabble) and they want stuff. Our stuff. If we want to keep our stuff we will have to fight which has been the human condition forever.

RBC said...

IQ tests are used by the US military not only to decide whether to let you in, but also to determine what job you are assigned after induction. As a result, whites in the field and minorities in the rear is at least as much about IQ as it is about choice. Practical job performance as a US Marine machinegunner correlates +0.66 with measured IQ!

And yes, the US military has published all sorts of stuff proving the importance of IQ. For example, it is known that the smarter the anti-aircraft gun crew is, the fewer shots it takes them to shoot down a target and the less often their equipment breaks. It is known that category IV (IQ 80 to 90) soldiers take 4 to 8 times as long to be trained to complete the simplest tasks (e.g., cleaning the cooking gear) as category III soldiers (IQ 90 to 110). This has all been published for years, starting in the 1950s. Professionals in job selection are well aware of this. Fat chance journalists will notice in less than another 50 years.

Anonymous said...

Why are all these White boys dying for Israel?

To protect America?

From whom? Saddam? Saadam never intended to invade the United States. Osama? Osama is not about invading the United States, either.

It's the United States that invaded *them.* Sadaam was a CIA stooge. Osama was a rich kid who hated military occupation of Araby (the attempted kind, from Russia - and the actual kind, from America).

Why did America stick its nose into Araby anyhow?

To protect our access to oil? That much oil is useless to its producer unless sold. We buy it. No problem with oil.

The only reason we're over there and the mountain of White male corpses is piling up, is because of Israel. They're dying to advance Israeli's destabilitation of the area in pursuit of the ultimate goal, "Greater Israel," i.e., Israel's control over the whole Middle East.

Who are the policymakers and pundits that pushed us into this war? Not all, but most of them are jews. Many are dual-citizen Israeli nationals!

The mainstays of White families and a White future are being fed into the sausage-grinder, fodder for jews.

It may be "racist" and "impolite" to notice these things, but believe me, we Whites notice.