Navy Seals and affirmative action

Ever since the assassination of Osama bin Laden, the Navy Seals have been recognized as the ultimate warriors.  During a recent Happy Hour, a friend noted that 90% of the Seals were white.  That didn’t sound right because the U.S. military has been a leading proponent of diversity for many years. 

When I went to the internet, however, I confirmed that my friend’s fact was true (90% of the officers and 80% of the enlisted men).  Inexplicably, the Navy has allowed its premier fighting team to become more white than an NBA team is black.  But the Navy is moving now to end this travesty.  According to a Time magazine blog, the Navy was soliciting a private contract to help expose this opportunity to non-whites in order to achieve more SEAL diversity.  The solicitation read as follows:

• Gaps exist in minority representation in both officer and enlisted ranks for Special Warfare operators. Diverse officers represent only ten percent of the officer pool (for example, African Americans represent less than 2% of SEAL officers). Diverse enlisted SEALs account for less than twenty percent of the total SEAL enlisted population. Naval Special Warfare is committed to fielding a force that represents the demographics of the nation it serves. This contract initiative seeks effective strategies to introduce high potential candidates from diverse backgrounds to the opportunities available in Naval Special Warfare.

This is the kind of affirmative action that I endorse – i.e., outreach.  There is no obvious reason why non-whites would not make as good a SEAL as whites do.  But I take issue with the comment that the Navy is committed to “fielding a force that represents the demographics of the nation that it serves.”  That sounds like a quota, and quotas have no place in the competitive process of selecting the most qualified individuals.

 

Missionary work

While riding my bike yesterday, I passed a couple of young, thin men who were dressed almost identically, and I surmised they were Mormon missionaries.  They brought to mind Mitt Romney and his missionary work in France before he enrolled in college.  I once heard Romney say that that work taught him to persevere because he rarely was able to convert people.  He might have even said he had zero converts.

Romney’s statement didn’t make sense – why would the Mormon Church conduct never-ending missions if they were essentially ineffective – so I decided to do some research.  First step – Wikipedia. 

According to Wikipedia:

• Young men between the ages of 19 and 25 who meet standards of worthiness are strongly encouraged to consider a two-year, full-time proselytizing mission. This expectation is based in part on the New Testament passage “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations…” (Matt. 28: 19-20). In 2007, approximately 30% of all 19-year-old LDS men became Mormon missionaries; from LDS families that are active in the church, approximately 80-90% of 19-year-old men serve a mission.  As of 2007, 80% of all Mormon missionaries were young, unmarried men, 13% were young single women and 7% retired couples.
• As of December 31, 2010, there were 52,225 LDS missionaries serving in 340 church missions throughout the world. Their work, often in cooperation with local members, resulted in 272,814 convert baptisms in 2010….  the number of convert baptisms per missionary per year has fallen from a high of 8.03 in 1989 to just 4.67 in 2005.

So, either Mitt Romney exaggerated his lack of proselytizing success in France or he was singularly unsuccessful.

Incidentally, Romney’s missionary service seems to have shielded him from criticism for his failure to serve in the U.S. military.  Of course, that is not much of a weakness anymore, since Ron Paul is the only candidate who has served.  Still, Romney seems to place military service in especially high regard, based on his willingness to endorse DREAM Act citizenship following military service, but not following a college education. 

 

Military pensions

There is a lot of talk about reforming military pensions as one way to reduce America’s defense costs.  The argument is that, like other government pensions, they are too generous.

A well-written op-ed piece in the NY Times describes the key issues, and I especially like its recommendations that (a) partial pensions should be made available to those serving less than 20 years, and (b) payments should begin at the normal retirement age.  Both recommendations are imminently reasonable, but I wonder why I have never heard the Times extend this same reasoning to its sacred cows – pensions for police and fire personnel.

Although most of the Times analysis is solid, I disagree with two points:

1. The Times argues that “a 401(k)-type plan for future retirees, is the wrong way to go. Military pensions should not be held hostage to stock market gyrations.”  I believe that, just because the stock market goes up and down, it remains the best place to grow your money.
   Furthermore, 401(k) plans always give investors the opportunity to avoid risk by putting their money into cash or bonds.  Fixed-benefit pensions are rapidly going the way of the dinosaur, and there is no need to maintain an exception for military personnel.
2. The Times argues that military pensions are too generous.  I believe that is clearly true of civilian government-employee pensions, especially police and fire, but not true of the military pensions.  When pensions (and other benefits) are too generous, the free market dictates that you will have an abundance of people seeking and holding on to the positions.  That is why there are long lines of people
   wanting civilian government jobs, especially police and fire, and very few people leaving those jobs before attaining the retirement benefits.  By contrast, there are not enough people wanting a job in the military and a lot of the military personnel leave before their so-called “generous” pension is vested.

The military pension needs to be reformed, perhaps with some money being shifted from pension to compensation, but the problem isn’t that America is spending too much on its military personnel.  Once the economy recovers, we will find that patriotism isn’t enough to keep our ranks filled, and we will have to spend more or re-institute a draft.