Martin Binkin – författare

For much of the nation's history, the participation of blacks in the armed forces was ap­proximately in line with their proportion in the total population. This changed during the 1970s: by 1980 one of every three Army Gls and one of every five marines were black. The reaction has been mixed.Many Americans look with approval on the growth of black participation in military service, since it often affords young blacks educational, social, and financial opportuni­ties that constitute a bridge to a better life not otherwise available to them. But for other Americans, the opportunities are outweighed by the disproportionate imposition of the burden of defense on a segment of the population that has not enjoyed a fair share of the benefits that society confers. From this perspective, the likelihood that blacks would suffer at least a third-and perhaps a half-of the combat fatalities in the initial stages of conflict is considered immoral, unethical, or otherwise contrary to the pre­cepts of democratic institutions.Some also worry that military forces with such a high fraction of blacks entail risks to U.S. national security. A socially unrepresentative force, it is argued, may lack the cohe­sion considered vital to combat effectiveness. Others fear that such a force would be unreliable if it were deployed in situations that would test the allegiance of its minority members. And some have even expressed concern that a large proportion of blacks may raise questions about the status of U.S fighting forces, as judged by the American pub­lic, the nation's allies, and its adversaries.The authors of this book examine evidence on both sides of the issue in an effort to bring objective scrutiny to bear on questions that for many years have been loaded with emotion and subjective reaction. They also discuss the implications for the military's ra­cial composition of demographic, economic, and technological trends and the possible effects of returning to some form of conscription.

The Persian Gulf conflict was the first major combat test for U.S. military forces since the nation ended conscription two decades ago. As hundreds of thousands of American troops were dispatched to the Middle East, the nation realized, seemingly for the first time, that the composition of its armed forces was far removed from any that the nation had previously sent to war.The deployment of unprecedented proportions of minorities and women and the prominent role of reserves and national guard troops aroused considerable interest, widespread debate, and some worry. The prospect that African Americans could bear a disproportionate share of military casualties generated a socially diverse debate that threatened to reopen old racial scars; the reality that American women were exposed to perils from which, by long and deep tradition, they had previously been shielded inspired calls for them to be admitted to combat specialties; and controversy surrounding the readiness of the Army's combat reserves led to an internecine struggle over the future shape of the U.S. Army.In this book, Martin Binkin addresses each of these issues in order to provide a better understanding of the composition of America's fighting forces, to prompt an assessment of attitudes toward who should fight in future wars, and to delineate the choices for influencing the social distribution of peril. Binkin argues that the time for public involvement is now, while the memories of the Persian Gulf conflict are still reasonably fresh and while a fundamental rethinking of the post-cold war military is under way.

For much of the nation's history, the participation of blacks in the armed forces was ap­proximately in line with their proportion in the total population. This changed during the 1970s: by 1980 one of every three Army Gls and one of every five marines were black. The reaction has been mixed.Many Americans look with approval on the growth of black participation in military service, since it often affords young blacks educational, social, and financial opportuni­ties that constitute a bridge to a better life not otherwise available to them. But for other Americans, the opportunities are outweighed by the disproportionate imposition of the burden of defense on a segment of the population that has not enjoyed a fair share of the benefits that society confers. From this perspective, the likelihood that blacks would suffer at least a third-and perhaps a half-of the combat fatalities in the initial stages of conflict is considered immoral, unethical, or otherwise contrary to the pre­cepts of democratic institutions.Some also worry that military forces with such a high fraction of blacks entail risks to U.S. national security. A socially unrepresentative force, it is argued, may lack the cohe­sion considered vital to combat effectiveness. Others fear that such a force would be unreliable if it were deployed in situations that would test the allegiance of its minority members. And some have even expressed concern that a large proportion of blacks may raise questions about the status of U.S fighting forces, as judged by the American pub­lic, the nation's allies, and its adversaries.The authors of this book examine evidence on both sides of the issue in an effort to bring objective scrutiny to bear on questions that for many years have been loaded with emotion and subjective reaction. They also discuss the implications for the military's ra­cial composition of demographic, economic, and technological trends and the possible effects of returning to some form of conscription.

When Virgil sang of arms and the man, words like ""smart"" and ""friendly"" characterized the warrior, not his weapons. Today, because of modern technology, these terms are more often used to describe the machine than the man. Dramatic advances have spawned a generation of weapon systems designed to tell friend from foe, to stalk the enemy with precision and stealth, and to destroy him with unprecedented efficiency. But can ordinary Americans operate and support these advanced systems, or have emerging technologies pushed military hardware beyond the capabilities of the people the armed forces can expect to attract and retain? How can the military better match weapons and skills?Martin Binkin looks at the complex issues from several angles, starting with skill levels and jobs in today's military. He profiles America's arsenal in the 1990s and examines the implications of electronic warfare for manpower needs. Links among hardware complexity, reliability, and maintenance are unraveled, and current demographic trends traced.The study assesses various policy options available to hedge against the possibility that the military could become squeezed between growing demands for technologically adept people and a declining supply of recruits. Among these are efforts to design simpler systems with more reliable engineering techniques. Binkin reviews ways to make weapons easier to maintain, stressing component accessibility, technical documentation, and automated diagnostics. He covers the use of advanced technology to prepare people to handle new systems. Finally, he discusses the principal manpower management alternatives—expanding the role of women, substituting civilians, retaining more personnel, and returning to conscription.

In the nearly two decades since the Nixon administration decided to withdraw U.S. armed forces from Vietnam and to end their dependence on conscription, America's military institution has undergone substantial changes. One of the most pronounced has been the increased reliance on Army reserve components, which today shoulder unprecedented responsibilities for protecting the nations security. Of special importance have been the growing expectations about the capabilities and readiness of the Army National Guard and the Army Reserve. Reserve components would now be among the first to be used in a range of possible conflicts—from limited contingencies involving rapid deployment forces to a major confrontation in Central Europe between NATO and the Warsaw Pact. This shift has been instituted with little public fanfare or debate yet the consequences could be dramatic and far-reaching. It raises the central question Binkin and Kaufmann address: How has greater reliance on Army reserves affected the nation's ability to protect its security?

When Virgil sang of arms and the man, words like ""smart"" and ""friendly"" characterized the warrior, not his weapons. Today, because of modern technology, these terms are more often used to describe the machine than the man. Dramatic advances have spawned a generation of weapon systems designed to tell friend from foe, to stalk the enemy with precision and stealth, and to destroy him with unprecedented efficiency. But can ordinary Americans operate and support these advanced systems, or have emerging technologies pushed military hardware beyond the capabilities of the people the armed forces can expect to attract and retain? How can the military better match weapons and skills?Martin Binkin looks at the complex issues from several angles, starting with skill levels and jobs in today's military. He profiles America's arsenal in the 1990s and examines the implications of electronic warfare for manpower needs. Links among hardware complexity, reliability, and maintenance are unraveled, and current demographic trends traced.The study assesses various policy options available to hedge against the possibility that the military could become squeezed between growing demands for technologically adept people and a declining supply of recruits. Among these are efforts to design simpler systems with more reliable engineering techniques. Binkin reviews ways to make weapons easier to maintain, stressing component accessibility, technical documentation, and automated diagnostics. He covers the use of advanced technology to prepare people to handle new systems. Finally, he discusses the principal manpower management alternatives—expanding the role of women, substituting civilians, retaining more personnel, and returning to conscription.

In the nearly two decades since the Nixon administration decided to withdraw U.S. armed forces from Vietnam and to end their dependence on conscription, America's military institution has undergone substantial changes. One of the most pronounced has been the increased reliance on Army reserve components, which today shoulder unprecedented responsibilities for protecting the nations security. Of special importance have been the growing expectations about the capabilities and readiness of the Army National Guard and the Army Reserve. Reserve components would now be among the first to be used in a range of possible conflicts—from limited contingencies involving rapid deployment forces to a major confrontation in Central Europe between NATO and the Warsaw Pact. This shift has been instituted with little public fanfare or debate yet the consequences could be dramatic and far-reaching. It raises the central question Binkin and Kaufmann address: How has greater reliance on Army reserves affected the nation's ability to protect its security?