|
But it reflects the drop in the quality of the recruits the army is taking in. Most African Americans stopped enlisting after the invasion of Iraq to do their opposition to that war (African Americans supported the war against the Taliban, but NOT Iraq), thus that left rural whites as the main source of US Army Recruits (Suburbanites tend NOT to enlist, thus NOT recruitment areas for the US Army). Inner City whites still enlist is huge numbers but seems to be secondary to Rural Whites (A lot of African Americans still enlist, but a significant number STOPPED after the invasion of Iraq).
To make up for the lost of African American Recruits (and many inner city whites) the US Army increased recruiting in Rural America, but also started to lower their standards (and many recruiters, do to pressure to recruit, told potential recruits how to avoid being rejected, something recruiters did NOT have to do in the 1990s, this includes such things as telling the recruit NOT to report his juvenile criminal record if it NOT a public record). As a whole more and more members of the US Army are NOT up to the standards of even the 1990s and thus you have increase level of crime (including abuse) within the US Army.
Now, secondary to this is the US Army policy of trying to get everyone to be one big happy team, and to sacrifice for each other. In the US army the policy is that when in comes to disputes between members of the same unit is handled by the unit. Only if the disputes are huge and affects unit cohesion is the officers of the unit under any pressure to bring criminal charges. In most cases the officers and NCOs attitude is to solve the problem the old fashion way, wait for one of the parities in the dispute to be transferred or to leave the US Army. The recent drop in quality of US Army Recruits and the increase need to keep members of military units together has affected this old policy by the simple means of making it almost impossible for people to quit or be transferred, but the system is NOT really set up for any other way to handle such disputes.
Now, in the above paragraph I avoid the use of the term Assault for the simple reason I wanted to address the larger issue, the issue of unit cohesion being affected even by personal disputes that do NOT come up to the level of assault or other criminal activities. Assaults and other Criminal Activities are handled by the same mechanisms as the simple problem of two people not liking each other and in many ways that is a major problem. Officers and NCOs are NOT promoted based on how many people under their command goes to jail, they are promoted on how well the unit does it duty and thus everything else is secondary to unit cohesion and training, including preventing crime. With the decline in the quality of US Army Recruits AND the fact it is rarer and harder to get transferred today then it was ten years ago, you have more and more situations where a victim has to associate with the perpetrator (and given the Combat Situation in Iraq and Afghanistan where can a female desert to? Desertion is the third alternatives in such situation and can force the Command Structure to address the problem, in many cases deserting may be a solution to the problem, if the victim/deserter gets caught she has a good defense in that she saw no other choice. She probably be convicted anyway, but it is a way to force the people up the chain of command to address the problem. Desertions goes on someone's military record, but to many desertions by people under their command, also affects the promotions of NCOs and Officers.
My Father told the story of his first Company Commander during WWII, he had been commissioned during WWI and stayed in the National Guard as commander of that unit, when that unit was activated for WWII he wanted to go with his old unit, but was told no, he had to take the test for Major instead. He took the test and then went over the hill, hoping his promotion would be denied do to the desertion. He was caught, and then promoted out of command of his old unit. After the war he was elected Sheriff of the county the National Guard unit was from. My father never said his first company commander was ever Court Martialed, but did say his first Company Commander did served the rest of the war as a Major and was later elected Sheriff.
My point for bring up that old story is desertion, while a crime, forces the command structure to bring up charges AND in that process WHY someone deserted will come up and have to be addressed. Desertion is always dangerous given the tough punishment involved for deserters, but it is an option when the unit is in a safe location. When it comes to Iraq and Afghanistan this option is out, no safe place for a woman to desert to. By the time the victim is in a safe place to desert to, the problem of working with the perpetrator rarely still exists (The command is no longer worried about lack of personal, and will transfer either the victim or the perpetrator out OR one or the other leaves the Army at that point).
Thus, the three traditional way to force the command structure to address this issue is not available to the victims. They can NOT desert, and when they can to need to do so is long gone. They can NOT wait to be transferred or for the other person to be transferred. They can NOT otherwise just avoid duties with that person. Thus the Command Structure has to start to bring more criminal charges, but if that happens the number of soldiers available for duty will drop (The recent decision to drop Don;t ask, don't tell seems to be driven by the need for recruits NOT any desire to end discrimination against homosexuals in the US Army, the same with the recent decision to move women into combat units, more do to drop in quality of recruits then any desire to improve the options of women in the Military).
Unlike the Draftee army of 1968-1972 (Which went into a rapid decline starting in 1968) the volunteer army is going into a slow decline and has been since at least 2002 when Iraq was invaded. It is taking twice as long (and the size of the army is 1/2 what it was in Vietnam) but it is becoming more and more clear. The US has to end the War in Afghanistan and Iraq or the US Army of today will follow the US Army of 1968-1972 and become a wreck. The patches so far are holding everything together (Vietnam was a much more extensive combat war thus an additional factor in the army rapid decline from 1968 till 1972) but these slow wars are taking their toll, slowly but surely.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
