I know many are using this study to “prove” that enlisted US troops are not working class, and therefore not capable of working-class consciousness or organizing. Since the argument cherry-picks facts from an already misleading report, I wanted to—very gently—put it to sleep... 
First of all, The Heritage Foundation is a pro-imperialist think tank. Their other “reports” at the time included “Fighting a Just War in Iraq” and “The Left Ignores Our Enemies in Iraq”
Furthermore the ENTIRE purpose of this report is to “debunk” the left’s argument that the US government disproportionally sends poor, working-class & oppressed people to die overseas. Ironic leftists would use it for the same thing!
Additionally the data used is from 1999 and 2003; so a bit dated, but instructive nonetheless. So let’s get into it...
HOUSEHOLD INCOME: The main crux of the argument by the right wing & ultra-left is based on this report stat—“the largest percentage of recruits are from middle class neighborhoods.” Therefore, recruits are privileged, well-off kids with no economic push. Let’s really look tho:
1. First it’s pretty strange to see Marxists suddenly embracing the term “middle class” as tho it is a class of its own, separate from the working class. But that aside...
2. The study uses HOUSEHOLD INCOME, not the income of the recruit. Data was for kids 18-24, so this means the combined income of THEIR PARENTS, who may have other children, etc...
3. This study considers “middle income” a household income of $35-$40,000 per year. Meaning most recruits come from families that make a total of $35-40k per year. Is that a “privileged” existence? That’s not even the Real Living Wage in many places!
4. Many using this study ignore the fact that 18% of recruits come from the POOREST neighborhoods in America. Is that 18% insignificant? I mean it’s only about 400,000 service members.
5. The only supporting data that recruits are “upper class” is that 18% came from the “wealthiest quintile.” A household needs to make $67k/yr to be in the “wealthiest quintile.” Not a bad income, but is it the bourgeoisie? When did Marxists develop an income cutoff for workers?
6. Furthermore the study showed that the mean income level of recruits was LOWER than the general population, conforming lower-income people are disproportionately joining
7. Finally the “Household Income” section finds: “The income distribution of recruits is nearly identical to the income distribution of the general population.” So the general population of the US has no potential for class consciousness or revolution because it’s too privileged?
8. In my years in the Army and over a decade of working with soldiers, I’ve never met a single person who was rich. Definitely none who had family was a shareholder or board member of an oil company or defense contractor. So there’s that.
9. EDUCATION LEVEL: A misleading fact in this section is “98% of recruits have a high school education level, compared to national average of 75%.” Yo its a REQUIREMENT to have a diploma or GED. Some get it waived, but usually recruiters will help you get your GED to qualify you.
10. Those using this fact conveniently ignore the study’s finding that “HALF of enlistees came from areas with BELOW-AVERAGE graduation rates.” There are no wealthy (or even just adequately-funded) schools with below-average graduation rates.
11. RACIAL BREAKDOWN: Ok so here is where the cherry-picking becomes offensive. This section is totally ignored. In the Army alone—the branch which sends the most to die—the study finds “proportionally Blacks make up 43% more recruits than general pop.; Latino & Native, 53% more”
12. This issue goes much deeper, but not in this study. It’s worth checking out the summary of an ACLU study here: globalresearch.ca/america-s-chil… that proves, most importantly, that...
13. The Pentagon focuses it’s highest recruitment resources on children in Los Angeles & NYC. In LA 91% of kids are non-white & 75% low income. In NYC, 71% of targeted kids are Black or Latino, 51% low income.
14. This led the ACLU to conclude in their study that: “The U.S. military’s practice of targeting low-income youth and students of color in combination with exaggerated promises of financial rewards for enlistment, undermines the voluntariness of their enlistment”
15. The study also found that “Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander recruits” are over-represented at 250%!!! But convenient to ignore the disproportionate presence of historically marginalized groups in the military...
16. REGIONAL DISTRIBUTION: Another ignored section. The study cites that while 25% of the population is from rural countryside, 35% of deaths in Iraq/Afghanistan were recruits from rural areas. If you’ve ever lived in extremely depressed rural areas, you know why so many join.
17. As the study itself points out: “rural areas generally offer a less flexible, thinner job market.”
18. To further illustrate that, the study shows recruits from the South are OVER-represented while recruits from New England UNDER-represented. Study attributes this to some weird “tradition” factor, but come on, compare basic quality of life in those two areas
19. Finally the regional section concludes the 9/11 attacks “had little effect on the regional demographics of recruits.” So the same rates of people were joining for the same reasons. There wasn’t a surge of people lining up to go to war. Recruitment numbers actually plummeted.
20. That’s pretty much what’s misrepresented—or omitted—from that study. Hope it sleeps well forever! Of course each point gets much deeper outside study’s findings, but just wanted to debunk how it’s being used to assign a false, manipulative class character to the rank-and-file
21. Final thing: the subject of recruitment deserves a lot more attention. Anyone who went to a low- even middle-income high school will tell you: recruiters reign supreme. They lie and manipulate kids at risk of poverty/unemployment. Even “guidance counselors” push kids to join.
Regarding some comments: the purpose of this, as I said at the beginning, was to debunk the use of this study used to “prove” enlisted soldiers come from privileged, non-oppressed & non-working-class backgrounds. The actual role of soldiers vs. cops & ICE is a different topic
At least we can all agree that the wars for the rich are fought with the blood of the poor & oppressed
