Book Review

ALL THAT WE CAN BE

by Charles C Moskos & John Sibley Butler

(New York: Basic Books, 1996)

One need not be a member of the Council on Foreign Relations to rec- ognize that the U.S. military is under- going its own form of reengineering. Jingoistic concepts like drtente, con- tainment, and geo-political equilibrium are now relics of a former time. The U.S. victory in the Persian Gulf has ushered in a new era of pax Ameri- cana. Concurrently we witness an epi- demic of democracy spreading in former totalitarian regions. The mili- tary now finds itself in an odd state of defense disequilibrium and mistaken identity. In the absence of an immedi- ate and identifiable enemy, the armed forces find themselves preoccupied with ephemeral issues like "nation building," narcotic drug interdiction, or social engineering. The new Zeit- geist for the military is clear: train for peace and pray for war.

Many critics have argued that the military has moved with all deliberate speed to promote a racial esprit de corps inside the military. Thomas E.

Hicks, writing in the July 1997 issue of The Atlantic Monthly, cites a grow- ing chasm between the military and society. His provocative essay, "The Widening Gap between the Military and Society," argues that military per- sonnel are increasingly rejecting lib- eral ideas and feeling more alienated from society. The alternative argu- ment, much more optimistic, stresses the military as the best example of a true meritocracy and results in unen- cumbered opportunities for all, pro- vided that individuals meet standards and expectations. Who is correct? The scope of a new book, All That We Can Be by Charles C. Moskos and John S. Butler, seeks to ascertain whether the military, and the U.S. Army in par- ticular, has been successful in fully integrating disparate members in an environment which offers promise, potential, and promotional opportuni- ties.

All That We Can Be is an important contribution to military sociology.

96 The Review of Black Political Economy/Spring 1998

Both authors are distinguished sociol- ogy professors and decorated Army veterans. The book consists of seven chapters and develops a logically con- sistent argument about the relation between the military and meritocracy. Academic jargon is minimized, result- ing in an exceptionally clear reading style for the non-specialist.

The authors provide a convincing argument that the best case for a meritocracy in American society is found in the military culture. The data on Army enlistment and reenlistment rates reveal blacks signing up at faster rates compared to whites. This trend implies that blacks perceive the prob- ability of bias in ability evaluation as being lower in the Army than in pri- vate sector alternatives. This interpre- tation should not be misconstrued to read that racial animus has been elimi- nated in the Army. The authors are careful to point out that discrimina- tory Ixeatment still occurs in the Army. What makes the Army unique is the leadership's creative strategies for managing discriminatory behavior.

If the probability of bias in evaluat- ing talent is lower in the Army, this should lead to a random distribution of rewards and a more level "playing field." These conclusions are sup- ported in several cases where Moskos and Butler debunk the myths about black combat death rates, performance on the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery [ASVAB] test, and military promotions.

The prevailing myth about black combat death rates is wrapped in the incendiary language that blacks have historically been used as "cannon fod-

der" for combat missions leading to a disproportionately higher death rate compared to white combat death rates. The authors show through new data on Vietnam casualties that such accu- sations are not substantiated and that parity is the norm, not the exception, when it comes to combat deaths. The ASVAB test is another area where myths have circulated about perceived black cognitive inferiority. The au- thors do not deny that black appli- cants on the ASVAB test have re- ported lower scores. What they do em- phasize is the intervention of the Army in targeting community colleges with remedial courses to aid and assist po- tential applicants so that they can boost their scores and improve the probabil- ity of gaining acceptance into the Army. The last myth debunked by the authors is the contentious issue of who gets promoted. This issue has been erroneously defined by some as the Army's benign practice of affirmative action. Moskos and Butler, however, describe the Army's promotion pro- cess as an institutional arrangement where the goals are not based on the minority population of the Army as a whole but instead on the minority pool of the next higher rank. This arrange- ment therefore only rewards those who have met the stringent standards and persuasively illustrates that success indeed follows sacrifice.

All That We Can Be is valuable for reasons which go beyond those stated above. Its judicious use of data and successful debunking of politically correct clichrs make for an air-tight argument in support of the impressive gains in ethnic diversity in the Army.

Book Review 97

For this reader, however, the single most important idea which permeates the book is that the Army's goal of ethnic diversity is viewed as an im- portant combat readiness issue. All goals aimed at expanding minority rep- resentation in either the non-commis- sioned officer ranks or the commis- sioned ranks are structured as indis- pensable elements in fortifying mili- tary end strength.

The Army is unrelenting in not compromising its high standards of excellence. Those who meet the chal- lenge are put in a position to move higher; those who do not simple join the ranks of the also-rans. The Army is unique in that as an institution it seeks to intervene to help minorities in the early stages so that a "return" on the Army's investment shows up in the latter stages through admission and promotion. The Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute (DEOMI), located in Cocoa Beach, Florida, is an effective institution de- veloped by the Pentagon to combat discriminatory practices in the mili- tary. The private sector is clearly defi- cient in these areas and can learn some invaluable lessons from the Army's experience.

The only notable shortcomings in the book are a surprising conspicuous absence of sociological theory and an analysis of how the feminization of the Army impacts gender relations. Theory provides the framework for explaining ex ante why an institution like the Army would be the leader in promoting meritocratic ideals relative

to other social institutions. Prominent sociologists like Christopher Jencks, William J. Wilson, Irving Kristol, and Orlando Patterson have all made semi- nal contributions in the area of race relations in a pluralistic society, but their theoretical contributions are scarcely mentioned in the book

The process of drawing conclusions solely from empirical observations is the epitome of deductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning (theory) allow the opportunity to test null-hypotheses for statistical significance. Although the book was published before the sexual peccadilloes at Aberdeen or the legal troubles of Sgt. Major of the Army, Eugene McKinney, the polarizing is- sue of women's access to certain com- bat billet positions is vintage material which warrants critical discussion. The book, in short, investigates meri- tocracy as only a race descriptor, leav- ing speculation about how gender is affected.

Theory notwithstanding, All That We Can Be will prove to be important in providing insight on how equal op- portunity can be realized in a racist environment. If true commitment is made to make a meritocracy a reality, it will first require enlightened leader- ship from those at the top. Currently, the Army appears to be in minority company in providing this form of leadership and for that we have Moskos and Butler to thank for mak- ing that point crystal clear.

Billy R. Dickens