February 26, 2004
AND HERE WE THOUGHT WE'D POLITICALLY CORRECTED HUMAN NATURE...:
Rapes Reported by Servicewomen in the Persian Gulf and Elsewhere (ERIC SCHMITT, February 26, 2004 , NY Times)
The United States military is facing the gravest accusations of sexual misconduct in years, with dozens of servicewomen in the Persian Gulf area and elsewhere saying they were sexually assaulted or raped by fellow troops, lawmakers and victims advocates said on Wednesday.There have been 112 reports of sexual misconduct over roughly the past 18 months in the Central Command area of operations, which includes Iraq, Kuwait and Afghanistan, military officials said on Wednesday.
The Army has reported 86 incidents, the Navy 12, the Air Force 8 and the Marine Corps 6.
Military officials said that the bulk of the charges were being investigated and that some had already resulted in disciplinary actions, but they could not provide specifics. They said a small number of the reports had turned out to be unfounded.
In addition, about two dozen women at Sheppard Air Force Base, a large training facility in Texas, have reported to a local rape-crisis center that they were assaulted in 2002. The Air Force Academy in Colorado is still reeling from the disclosure last year of more than 50 reported assaults or rapes over the last decade.
The latest accusations are the most extensive set of sexual misconduct charges since the Navy's Tailhook incident of 1991 and the Army's drill sergeant scandal about five years later. In response, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld this month ordered a senior-level inquiry into the reported sexual assaults in Iraq and Kuwait, and how the armed services treats victims of sexual attacks. The Army and Air Force have opened similar investigations.
The issue came to a boil at a contentious hearing on Capitol Hill on Wednesday, where Senate Democrats and Republicans sharply questioned the Pentagon's top personnel official and four four-star officers for what the lawmakers said were lapses in the military's ability to protect servicewomen from sexual assaults, to provide medical care and counseling to victims of attacks and to punish violators.
Lawmakers said they were particularly appalled by reports that women serving in roles from military police to helicopter pilots had been assaulted by male colleagues in remote combat zones like Iraq and Afghanistan, where immediate medical treatment and a sense of justice seemed to be lacking.
Bright idea sending young men and women into warzones, where justice is always lacking, together, eh? Posted by Orrin Judd at February 26, 2004 11:57 AM
Stupid social engineering. Women can and do serve real and honorable service in our armed forces; but not in a combat zone. Absolutely unnecessary.
Posted by: Genecis at February 26, 2004 12:40 PMAny price is worth paying to alleviate the fear that we might be guilty of some manner of inequality.
Posted by: Paul Cella at February 26, 2004 12:43 PMJust out of curiosity . . . the article tells us there were 112 reported incidents. 112 out of how many people serving? How does that rate compare to the rate of reported incidents among similar-sized coed populations, like, say, a college campus?
Posted by: Mike Morley at February 26, 2004 1:24 PMJust out of curiosity . . . the article tells us there were 112 reported incidents. 112 out of how many people serving? How does that rate compare to the rate of reported incidents among similar-sized coed populations, like, say, a college campus?
Posted by: Mike Morley at February 26, 2004 1:25 PMHaving served in a combat zone, and having had women in my (non-combat) command, I second Genecis.
Posted by: Jeff Guinn at February 26, 2004 2:17 PMGood question, Mr. Morley.
Posted by: Paul Cella at February 26, 2004 2:37 PMSorry for the double post. Duh-oh!
Posted by: Mike Morley at February 26, 2004 3:20 PM"How does that rate compare to the rate of reported incidents among similar-sized coed populations, like, say, a college campus?"
Or a movie studio.
