Army lacks "overarching policy" about sexual assault? How much training is needed?

The BBQ Pit
1

Sexual assaults in the US Army have been steadily increasing for 5 years, according to this Washington Post story.

The story is based on an internal Army report that says , among other things:

WTF is the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Militaty Jusctice) of not an “overarching policy”? And what is a “progressive” program against secual assault?

So the MPs in Iraq lacked the training to tell them that beating and raping prisoners is wrong? And somehow the message not to rape their fellow soldiers just isn’t getting out?

The people writing this report don’t have a fuckin’ clue. Maybe by “overarching” the mean “bend over”.

2

Hopefully they can incorporate some sort of obstacle course into the sexual assault prevention training program. You know, like running through the tires and climbing the rope wall. That way, they can make do with what they already have in place.

Either that, or every soldier who sexually assaults someone has to drop and give you twenty.

3

Man, I must read about 15 or 20 things a day now that just make me give up hope.

“May you live in interesting times” is definitely a curse.

4

“We lack a policy” is organizationspeak for “We don’t have the balls to actually start firing/imprisoning people.” What the Army is really saying, in a backhanded way, is “We haven’t strung enough people up for this and we’re really not willing to, because too few of us have the moral courage to convict and imprison a capable soldier with political or family connections.”

Trust me, you see it all the time in every kind of organization about many issues. Once they say “there’s something wrong with the policy,” what follows is a bizarro mirror universe version of the truth.

5

Rickjay, I agree with what you say but I’m not sure how applicable it is to these situations. Low ranking Army kids are hardly the type for important family or political connections.

I think a more accurate translation is, "The Army’s command structure by and large ignores our official policies, and is contemptuous of them, and that’s the message that goes to the lower ranks.

I think a very large part of the officer corp is contemptuous of women in the service, and think of them as “pretend” soldiers not worthy of the term, or the respect due to “real” soldiers. Not unlike the Colorado football coach who, in responding to rape allegations by a former woman team member, said the men on the team didn’t respect her because she was such a shitty player.

On second thought, maybe you’re right one step removed. Maybe they’re saying, “we just can’t afford to get rid of all the male officers who make it clear they have no respect for women soldiers”. Theyd end up with a purge that would make Stalin pause.

I suppose it’s not fair to discuss the prisoner abuse scandal in conjunction with the sexual assault of American soldiers. I link them in my mind only because of the rationale offered to explain the behavior, “lack of training”. Bullshit – they got training, just not the kind that the Army will admit is offered.

6

This might be part of it. The last thing they want now is to get rid of a lot of soldiers, since they’re having to call up reserves (and having them stay longer) as it is.

7

You guys are making a lot of broad assumptions on very little data. Read the article again, and you’ll notice that it is complaining about “prevention” programs. Although it does mention slow investigations, it does not say that rapists are getting off scott free. It does not say that rapists somehow think that raping is ok. It does, however, mention that more and more women have been joing the army at the front in the same years during which more and more women have been reporting sexual assaults. Is it possible that the number increase is simply due to the increase in the number of women there? In other words, has there really been a percentage increase which would indicate some sort of societal problem?

You really have to read news stories with an eye to the possibility that there is more being made of an issue than it really deserves. Failing that, you should refrain from adding assumptions to your interpretation of the news story.

8

I did read the story, and I’m allowed to draw conclusions from it, as are you for that matter. The reporter certainly did. The main one:

Do you imagine that Amry regulations on rape and other types of physical assault are somehow unclear?

Or that soldiers need training on how NOT to commit violent assaults on their peers?

What the hell are you doing here if you don’t believe that we have the right to draw inferences and conclusions from media stories on current events?

Every persone reading that story has to make an individual conclusion about how much attention an issue deserves.

I can’t even say that you and I are talking about the same “issue”. For me, it’s not that assaults are increasing. It’s that the Army clearly doesn’t understand why it is happening. I can’t claim that my understanding is correct, either, but I have as much a right as any other citizen to comment on my government’s actions or lack thereof.

9

of course. But you are not free to make unreasonalbe conclusions without being challenged.

Of course not. You are making some sort of accusation along these lines.

No, and neither does the article you are linking to. It says simply that there are problems with procedures to prevent or deal with sexual assualts.

Well, I did not say you did not have the right to reach conclusions. I simply challenged the ones you made as unreasonable.

Ok, but if “it” is not happening, then certainly that question should be important your accusations.

The reporter did in fact make some conclusions about the numbers as you quoted. He also quoted an army source that “noted that during the period covered by the data, the number of women on active duty in the Army increased. With more women in the Army Reserve than in the regular Army, and with more reservists on active duty, she said, “the raw number of sexual assaults being reported remains extremely low as a percentage.””

Now, I’m not trying to say there is no problem. That the army report indicates a need for a “comprehensive, progressive . . . program to train solders and leaders in the prevention of and response to sexual assault.” is certainly a concern. But it seems to me that you are looking at the increasing number of sexual assault cases and reaching conclusions about rapists not being punished or even encouraged which are not warranted.

As in, “The people writing this report don’t have a fuckin’ clue”. Especially when the person making that accusation admits that he has no idea what an overarching policy on the prevention of and response to sexual assault might look like. (And even more especially when you misinterpret that phrase as a program against sexual assault.)

But mostly I’m pissed that you stole my line about bending over. :wink:

10

Pervert (excuse me if I find it somewhat humerous to debate issues of sexual assault with someone having your screen name :))

A few points here:

I never suggested that rapists are going unpunished, or consciously encouraged in their actions. My arguement is that male soldiers get the message that female soldiers are not their equals, not entitled to the same respect as other male soldiers. That is, of course, contrary to Army policy, and apparently the Army is unwilling to address this. Frankly, this is an attitude that is unlikely to be changed by any manner of training. And it is reinforced by Army policy that does in fact discriminate against femal soldiers – since they are not allowed to be in combatant roles in which they might earn that respect. It’s akin to locker room chatter, or what is called an “old boys club” mentality. It’s the kind of attitude that, if it does go away, it disappears by the attrition of the people who who have it, not by changing their minds. Or, as RickJay suggests, you reduce the visible displays of the attitude by the severity of the punishment you mete out to officers and noncoms who give voice to the attitude.

You want to be more specific about what specific conclusions I draw that are unreasonable?

And I am not accusing the Arny of having unclear policies about sexual assault. It is apparently (and IMO, incorrectly) a conclusion of this Army report that this is the case. And to me, this conclusion indicates the Army doesn’t understand the reasons underlying these assaults.

I also think the report DOES suggest that soldiers need to be trained not to commit sexual assaults, which IMO is pretty ridiculous. As are the statements that MPs should need special training not to beat and sexually humiliate prisoners of war. The Abu Graib sildiers at least have the justification that they were obeying orders of military intelligence offices, and in that case the training they lack is to refuse to obey illegal orders from their superiors.

Regarding assumptions, show me any sitation in which you know every possible relevant fact. Youe never know for certain what is relevant and what isn’t, and you always make assumptions to reach any conclusions, with a few possible exceptions involving laboratory experiments.

I know what I think is an overarching policy about sexual assault, and other crimes, for that matter. It is called the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and it defines what behaviors are unacceptable and what the puinshments for inappropriate behavior are.

I am not misinterpreting the statement about an “overarching policy” as a program agains sexual assault. I was responding to this item from the article:

11

Not at all. My first thought when I saw the thread title was to make a bad joke. You stole my thunder on that one.

Thank you for restating it more clearly. Personally I agree that this is probably the case in some ways. However, I’m not sure I follow the reasoning from the article to this assesment. The report(s) being discussed in the article clearly complain about the need for better training for prevention and response to sexual assault. Specifically, it mentions faster investigations, problems providing confidentiality to victims, and training for supervisors to prevent such things in the first place.

In a heavily male dominated organization as large as the military, I can see where programs covering these issues might not yet be developed which could be called “overarching”. We could have programs in place in each of the branches of the service (indeed as you point out sexual assault has always been illegal in the uniform code of justice). However, we might not have a comprehensive program which all of the branches apply with consistency.

It seems that they could have done something a long time ago. It seems they should be able to put a program in place pretty quickly (although, of course the results would take a long time to be observed). However, the need for such a program is not the same thing as proof of misogynist tendencies. Indeed, since the report in question is one generated by the military itself, it might be argued that this is simply the first step toward creating the program in question.

It might surprise some, but training personel not to sexually assualt others is indeed necessary. Of course, noone needs to be told not to rape their fellow soldiers. But rape is not the only form of sexual assualt. Opinions still differ as to what, exactly, constitutes sexual assault. And if you expand it to include sexual harrassment, then opinions are so divided that it is silly to suggest that merely making it illegal is sufficient for anything.