Debunking the myth of the underprivileged soldier

That's the title of this opinion piece in today's USA Today:

In it, Tim Kane and James Jay Carafano do a respectable job of countering the arguments often made by anti-war/anti-recruiting activists that minorities and the impoverished disproportionately bear the burden of defence:

That's the view of some critics, such as New York Times columnist Bob Herbert, who writes that "very few" of the soldiers fighting in Iraq "are coming from the privileged economic classes," and that there would likely be no war if rich kids had to fight. According to Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., social equality demands reinstatement of the draft, which he justifies by asserting that "the most privileged Americans are underrepresented or absent." Herbert concludes that there is "something very, very wrong with this picture."

What's "very, very wrong" with the Rangel-Herbert picture is that it has no factual basis.

According to a comprehensive study of all enlistees for the years 1998-99 and 2003 that The Heritage Foundation just released, the typical recruit in the all-volunteer force is wealthier, more educated and more rural than the average 18- to 24-year-old citizen is. Indeed, for every two recruits coming from the poorest neighborhoods, there are three recruits coming from the richest neighborhoods.

The study mentioned can be found here. Also, more commentary by Mr. Kane can be found here.

The good news is that contrary to what we so often see in the MSM, patriotism among our youth is flourishing and crosses racial and economic boundaries.

I hope Rep. Charles Rangel takes a look.