Military recruiters preying upon potential enlistees

[Alonzo]

More than 100 young women who expressed an interest in joining the military in the past year were preyed upon sexually by their recruiters.

They were raped on recruiting office couches, assaulted in government cars and groped en route to entrance exams.

A six-month Associated Press investigation found that more than 80 military recruiters were disciplined last year for sexual misconduct with potential recruits. The cases occurred across all branches of the military and in all regions of the country.

"This should never be allowed to happen," an 18-year-old victim said. "The recruiter had all the power. He had the uniform. He had my future. I trusted him."

At least 35 Army recruiters, 18 Marine Corps recruiters, 18 for the Navy and 12 for the Air Force were disciplined for sexual misconduct or other inappropriate behavior with potential enlistees in 2005, according to records obtained through Freedom of Information Act requests. That's significantly more than the handful of cases disclosed in the past decade.

The records also found:

• The Army, which accounts for almost half of the military, has had 722 recruiters accused of rape and sexual misconduct since 1996.

• Across all services, one out of 200 frontline recruiters -- the ones who deal directly with young people -- was disciplined for sexual misconduct last year.

• Some cases of improper behavior involved romantic relationships. Sometimes those relationships were initiated by the women.

• Most recruiters found guilty of sexual misconduct are disciplined administratively, facing a reduction in rank or forfeiture of pay; military and civilian prosecutions are rare.

• The increase in sexual-misconduct incidents is consistent with overall recruiter wrongdoing, which has increased from about 400 cases in 2004 to 630 cases in 2005, a General Accounting Office report released last week said.

Defense Department spokeswoman Lt. Col. Ellen Krenke said the Pentagon doesn't track sexual misconduct cases among recruiters and had no comment.

In the Army, 53 recruiters were charged with misconduct last year. Recruiting spokesman S. Douglas Smith said the Army is training its staff to avoid these problems.

The victims' stories

The Associated Press generally doesn't name victims in sexual assault cases. For this story, victims were interviewed at home and perpetrators in jail; police and court accounts of assaults also were reviewed.

A pattern emerged. The sexual misconduct almost always takes place in recruiting stations, recruiters' apartments or government vehicles. The victims are typically 16 to 18 years old, and they usually are thinking about enlisting.

"We had been drinking, yes. And we went to the recruiting station at about midnight," one girl's story begins.

The 18-year-old from Ukiah, Calif., hides her face in her hands as she describes the night when Marine Corps recruiter Sgt. Brian Fukushima climbed into her sleeping bag at the station and took off her pants. Two other recruiters were having sex with two of her friends in the same room.

"I had a freak-out session and just passed out" she said.

Fukushima was convicted of misconduct in a military court after other young women reported similar assaults. He left the service with a less than honorable discharge last fall.

"It was a lapse in judgment," said Capt. James Weirick, Fukushima's military attorney.

Clear lines made clearer

All of the recruiters the Associated Press spoke with said they were routinely alone in their offices and cars with girls. They also all agreed the lines were clear: Recruiters don't sleep with enlistees.

"Any recruiter that would try to claim that -- 'Oh, it's consensual' -- they are lying. They are lying through their teeth," said former Marine Corps recruiter Ethan Walker.

In Indiana, where National Guard recruiter Sgt. Eric Vetesy has been charged with 31 counts of rape, sexual battery and official misconduct, military officials have instituted a No One Alone policy.

The male Army National Guard recruiters in Indiana can't be alone in offices, cars or anywhere else with a female enlistee. If they are, they risk immediate disciplinary action.

"We've had a lot fewer problems," said Lt. Col. Ivan Denton, commander of the Indiana Guard's recruiting battalion.



http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060820/NEWS07/608200652/1009

[Mayberry]

So 'Zo, you're out to get the military again, eh? Well, sh1t happens. Is it wrong? Yes. Should they be punished? Yes. But why you seem to feel it is necessary to post anything negative about the military is beyond me. How about posting something positive for a change? If you ask me all this article does is reinforce the notion that women shouldn't be in the military, and we've already had this argument, so save it.

[Cobra]

Zo posted an importent piece of news worthy of debate and him posting it does in no way prove he is out to get the military. Your accusation is totally groundless.

[Alonzo]

So 'Zo, you're out to get the military again, eh? Well, sh1t happens. Is it wrong? Yes. Should they be punished? Yes. But why you seem to feel it is necessary to post anything negative about the military is beyond me. How about posting something positive for a change?

Well, should steps be taken to make sure it doesn't happen again?

If you ask me all this article does is reinforce the notion that women shouldn't be in the military, and we've already had this argument, so save it.


Or it could be that men aren't mature enough to control themselves.

[Cobra]

If you ask me all this article does is reinforce the notion that women shouldn't be in the military, and we've already had this argument, so save it.
Women can be raped doing any job or leaving their homes, does that reinforce the idea that woman should not work or leave their home as it is in many Islamic countries.

[Mayberry]

Well, should steps be taken to make sure it doesn't happen again?
Is it wrong? Yes. Should they be punished? Yes. Women can be raped doing any job or leaving their homes, does that reinforce the idea that woman should not work or leave their home as it is in many Islamic countries. No. Women going to work or the store aren't defending their country. That is a much more serious matter that demands full attention. You can say what you want, but women are a distraction on the battlefield, and a temptation. Many men can't seem to resist that temptation, apparently, so it should be removed. I'm not saying women can't do a good job as soldiers. I just don't think they should. And in all fairness, say if the draft was reinstated, I think women would have to be included in the draft, and I sure as hell don't want my daughters drafted, they'd never make it. They're "girly girls" and wouldn't have a prayer.

[Elrathin]

You can say what you want, but women are a distraction on the battlefield, and a temptation. Many men can't seem to resist that temptation, apparently, so it should be removed.


HUH? In the battlefield, most people are concerned with saving their butts, not getting a piece of a$$

So what do you think of female cops then?

[Cobra]

And in all fairness, say if the draft was reinstated, I think women would have to be included in the draft, and I sure as hell don't want my daughters drafted, they'd never make it. They're "girly girls" and wouldn't have a prayer.
Woman are equel citizens and have just as much at stake when it comes to protecting this country. They should be included in the draft and saying some are girly girls isn't a good excuse. There are plenty of girly men out there, and modern combat is less and less about physical strength.

[Mayberry]

So what do you think of female cops then? Whole different scenario. Woman are equel citizens and have just as much at stake when it comes to protecting this country This is true, but it still doesn't mean they need to be on a battlefield. There are plenty of girly men out there, and modern combat is less and less about physical strength. This is also true, and the girly men tend to weed themselves out. And while modern combat is less about physical strength, it still takes a stout individual to carry 80 pounds of gear around in 120 degree desert heat. My wife has a hard time carrying 30 pounds. Granted, she is petite, and not all women are.

[Mayberry]

They should be included in the draft and saying some are girly girls isn't a good excuse. If that were the case, I'd compel them to volunteer for the Coast Guard. My girls are petite like their mother, and no way could they carry 80 pounds of gear around for 10 feet, much less 10 miles. And neither one would harm a fly, much less kill a man. They have strong maternal instincts, like their mom. Myself, I would blast any melon farmer who took a shot at me and not lose a minute of sleep over it.

[Rider]

Cobra wrote- Woman are equel citizens and have just as much at stake when it comes to protecting this country. They should be included in the draft and saying some are girly girls isn't a good excuse. There are plenty of girly men out there, and modern combat is less and less about physical strength.

Problems like this cannot be worked out with a set of balance scales or some computer program filled with socio-economic equations. Common sense should tell us that drafting women and men both would leave families and children stranded. The military is not a jobs program and it is not a democracy. The military definitely needs women, in fact it could not sustain operations without them. Drafting them, however is not the answer.

But, if recruiters prey on them how do you think they'll fare with a group of grunts out in the field in a combat zone after about 4 months? Also, troops in the field now carry about 50% more weight in gear than we did 35 years ago. BTW, just what do you know about modern combat?

[Alonzo]

Rider, if I'm not mistaken, wasn't there an exception for single parent families when we had a draft?

The rest of your issues, strength and everything else, mean little. There are women who are physically strong enough and capable to do the job, and there are some men who aren't. Yes, more women aren't as capable in that sense, but all that requires is setting a bar where those who equal or exceed the requirement can fight, those who don't can't, or are restricted to areas where they are capable.

[Cobra]

But, if recruiters prey on them how do you think they'll fare with a group of grunts out in the field in a combat zone after about 4 months? Also, troops in the field now carry about 50% more weight in gear than we did 35 years ago. BTW, just what do you know about modern combat?

Depends on the woman and what quality of men accepted into the US military that she must work with. If the command structure allows their troops to prey on woman, woman will be preyed on and it's not the woman’s fault and could in fact be drastically limited by making a few examples out of the men who do this.

Some woman could in fact keep up with men and are physically as strong as some men, as far as what do I know about modern combat. Let’s see, it doesn't take extreme strength to ride in a hummer, man checkpoints, and shoot guns which many soldier in Iraq are doing and woman are capble of and are even doing in Iraq. Not to mention acting as interpraters on combat mission with their male counterparts. Woman don't seem to be hurting our cause in Iraq. We’re not talking Special Forces here and even they should allow woman if the woman could be the standards.

[Rider]

Sorry Cobra, you just don't understand the situation. No offense meant, but any soldier can be called upon to do countless other jobs at any time. You quite understandibly have a simplistic view of warfare. That GI that you've seen on TV firing a rifle will most likely be filling sandbags or unloading equipment off a truck later that day. Women are excellent in many noncombatant roles. They are essential to the operation of the US military. They have always been used to free up men for combat roles. Let's get real, women simply cannot compete with men phyically. Putting women in male units in a combat zone is ludicrous and endangers everyone and more importantly the mission of that unit.

I repeat, the armed forces are not a jobs program.

[Cobra]

No offense meant, but any soldier can be called upon to do countless other jobs at any time. You quite understandibly have a simplistic view of warfare. That GI that you've seen on TV firing a rifle will most likely be filling sandbags or unloading equipment off a truck later that day.
I am well aware of that and if a woman could meet the standards to be in a combat unit she would certinly be able to fill sand bags.
Let's get real, women simply cannot compete with men phyically.
Let's get real, most woman simply can not compete with men physically.

[Rider]

Cobra wrote-
Rider Wrote:
No offense meant, but any soldier can be called upon to do countless other jobs at any time. You quite understandibly have a simplistic view of warfare. That GI that you've seen on TV firing a rifle will most likely be filling sandbags or unloading equipment off a truck later that day.

I am well aware of that and if a woman could meet the standards to be in a combat unit she would certinly be able to fill sand bags.

Well, that's settled. Women can't meet the standards to serve in a combat unit.

Quote:
Let's get real, women simply cannot compete with men phyically.


Let's get real, most woman simply can not compete with men physically.

OK, 98% of women. Should we turn combat arms upside down to accomodate the other 2%?

[Cobra]

OK, 98% of women. Should we turn combat arms upside down to accomodate the other 2%?

Yes, and it wouldn't be that horrible.

[Alonzo]

It would be much higher than 2%. But if you give everyone the same tests in strength, endurance etc. and set a bar that all must equal, you are going to have more recruits. It's foolish to dismiss recruits simply because of gender.

Israel employs women in some combat roles (though not in heavy combat, like Lebanon), so does Germany, Canada and a few others. And history is full of women leaders, and even women in combat, that performed exceptionally well. The banning of women in combat roles is largely a cultural limitation, not a practical one.

[lily]

Thought I'd throw my nickel's worth in. Let's see, they raised the age requirment for men, and lowered the IQ.....I don't see any problem here with wonen in the military, if they're willing to change the main two requirements for men.

I think in Iraq especially women in the military would have a special role. If only for checking Iraqi women for weapons, or anything else hidden.

[Rider]

Cobra wrote- Yes, and it wouldn't be that horrible.

Thanks, with your extensive knowledge of the military and combat experience, I am comforted by your statement.

[Rider]

The one thing that all of you carefully skirt around is SEX. You act as if it doesn't exist, or you make believe that everyone will just play nice. You put people under the most severe stress possible and under conditions that most people can't even conceive of and there will be sexual tensions. If recruiters and drill sergeants succumb to it, what makes you think that soldiers in combat will be any different?
Also, from what I've read the Israelis tried women in combat and stopped the practice because of problems it caused.
Just imagine for a second... you have a platoon of grunts in combat for 3 months on the ragged edge. They've lost many killed and wounded and are on their last nerve. The resupply chopper comes in with supplies and 4 replacements, 3 of which are women. Are you honestly going to tell me that the situation won't be ripe for trouble?
Of course, being liberals you simply can't accept real life issues. It's always a textbook/academic issue for you. I really don't mean to be rude, but I have never heard of any field commander with any experience that thought women belong in combat.

[Elrathin]

If recruiters and drill sergeants succumb to it, what makes you think that soldiers in combat will be any different?


You have no experience with combat then if that is what you feel. There is a HUGE difference between a recruiter and someone in combat. Yes someone in combat will react differently.

I can assure you, one of the LAST things on someones mind as bullets are flying over your head is having sex.

[Cobra]

Thanks, with your extensive knowledge of the military and combat experience, I am comforted by your statement.

Good, you should be.

[Rider]

Cobra- good answer!

[underdawg]

Most women should not be in a combat situation because they just don't possess the physical strength, but I know a few lesbians that would kick some serious ass in combat.

[Alonzo]

The one thing that all of you carefully skirt around is SEX. You act as if it doesn't exist, or you make believe that everyone will just play nice. You put people under the most severe stress possible and under conditions that most people can't even conceive of and there will be sexual tensions.

Evidence of where this is actually a significant enough problem to outweigh the loss of capable soldiers?

And there are plenty of reports of homosexual acts (which both heterosexuals and homosexuals willingly engaged in) occuring during WW2, particularly in Britain. Yet they didn't cause a problem.

If recruiters and drill sergeants succumb to it, what makes you think that soldiers in combat will be any different?

Because combat and non combat roles are different.

Also, from what I've read the Israelis tried women in combat and stopped the practice because of problems it caused.

Nope, their roles are increasing:

http://www.boston.com/news/world/articles/2006/09/17/women_play_key_role_on_an_israeli_front/

http://www.washingtontimes.com/world/20031230-112834-9968r.htm

Just imagine for a second... you have a platoon of grunts in combat for 3 months on the ragged edge. They've lost many killed and wounded and are on their last nerve. The resupply chopper comes in with supplies and 4 replacements, 3 of which are women. Are you honestly going to tell me that the situation won't be ripe for trouble?

The issue is?

[Rider]

Zo wrote-
Rider Wrote:

The one thing that all of you carefully skirt around is SEX. You act as if it doesn't exist, or you make believe that everyone will just play nice. You put people under the most severe stress possible and under conditions that most people can't even conceive of and there will be sexual tensions.


Evidence of where this is actually a significant enough problem to outweigh the loss of capable soldiers?

1.- What evidence could exist; we don't allow women in combat.
2.- Women aren't capable soldiers for combat purposes.

And there are plenty of reports of homosexual acts (which both heterosexuals and homosexuals willingly engaged in) occuring during WW2, particularly in Britain. Yet they didn't cause a problem.

1.- Reports?
2.- How do you know?

Quote:
If recruiters and drill sergeants succumb to it, what makes you think that soldiers in combat will be any different?



Because combat and non combat roles are different.

Which only strengthens my point.


Quote:
Also, from what I've read the Israelis tried women in combat and stopped the practice because of problems it caused.



Nope, their roles are increasing:

http://www.boston.com/news/world/article...eli_front/

http://www.washingtontimes.com/world/200...-9968r.htm

I'm not surprised to learn that, however I don't expect good results.


Quote:
Just imagine for a second... you have a platoon of grunts in combat for 3 months on the ragged edge. They've lost many killed and wounded and are on their last nerve. The resupply chopper comes in with supplies and 4 replacements, 3 of which are women. Are you honestly going to tell me that the situation won't be ripe for trouble?



The issue is?

If you can ask that, you're either deeply in PC denial or just out of touch with reality, no offense intended.

[Elrathin]

My main consern with women in combat is not their capability. That can always be tested to the same male standards to make sure they are capable.

What I am concerned with personally with women in combat is their treatment as P.O.W.s if captured.

[Cobra]

What I am concerned with personally with women in combat is their treatment as P.O.W.s if captured.
That is a valid concern but shouldn't they as grown woman be able to understand and accept that risk. Men as POW can be treated bad, killed even, they are allowed to take that risk for themselves to work in the career of their choice. If woman are equel citizens in your mind why shouldn't they also be able to do this.

[Rider]

Elrathin wrote- My main consern with women in combat is not their capability. That can always be tested to the same male standards to make sure they are capable.

No, there are standards of male behavior that cannot be measured in some test of physical strength. Much of what makes a man a warrior is testosterone in the bloodstream. Have you never been confronted with a physical task that seems to be beyond you, but when you got mad enough you had all the strength you needed? Have you ever been in a fight so intense that you later realized that the phrase- "seeing red" was really true?
In boot camp I was confronted with a log wall (in an obstacle course) that I just couldn't get over. My friendly DI gave me some warm encouragement in the form of a vicious kick in the ass. Every time I tried and fell back, he kicked me again. On the 12th kick I made it over. The next day I was so bruised I could hardly walk, but he had taught me a lesson and it wasn't about climbing walls. Lessons like that save lives in combat and more importantly accomplish missions that would otherwise fail. Can you even imagine that scenario with a female recruit, no matter how strong or fit?

[Cobra]

You don't think a woman can see red if you make her mad enough. That reaction has much more to do with the adrenaline rush over testosterone I would think.

[Elrathin]

Can you even imagine that scenario with a female recruit, no matter how strong or fit?


I have seen such a thing (With a femal Drill Sargeant doing that to a female recruit). Yes, it can be done so yes, I still stand by that pysical measurements can be done with females as is done with males.

[lily]

My main consern with women in combat is not their capability.Â*Â*That can always be tested to the same male standards to make sure they are capable.Â*Â*

What I am concerned with personally with women in combat is their treatment as P.O.W.s if captured.Â*Â*


It seems that Shoshana Johnson and Jessica Lynch held up pretty good.

[Alonzo]

Can you please use quotes instead of color. It can be very difficult to read your posts sometimes.


1.- What evidence could exist; we don't allow women in combat.

The soviets did in WW2, Israel does, Canada does (and they've been seeing a lot of combat lately in Afghanistan), and historically there have been many examples of women fighting alongside men in battle. One of my favorite examples of female leaders would be Candace of Meroe, Queen of the Nubian Empire. She struck fear into Alexander the Great, and, when she confronted him with her army, he fled the battlefield and the Nubian Empire. Another example would be Amage, a Sarmatian queen who took an army of little more than 100 troops and attacked a neighboring kingdom who had made incursions onto her land. They killed the royal guards, family, and she personally killed the prince who ruled the land.

Women also played a pivotal role in revolts against the Romans. Boudica was a celtic queen who led a revolt against the Romans, and her army included men and women. Another example is the all female army that captured the Amorite capital.

And Sikhism (a large religion in India, and one of the worlds largest religions) is renowned for its warriors. Since Sikhism believes in the equality of men and women, Sikh women fought alongside men on the battlefield and it has a long history of powerful female warriors.

Most societies gradually became more patriarchal as time went on, and the closer you get to modern times (up until recently) the more odd it is to see female warriors. Sikh women are one of the few significant exceptions though. As they arose in a society of Hindu's and Muslims, where women had relatively little power.

In the civil war women also fought, some were even honored if I remember correctly. Though they hid their gender.

And in Vietnam, women fought at Dien Bien Phu and fought the americans alongside men.

And even in modern times, female leaders have been tough. Margaret Thatcher and Indira Gandhi are perfect examples of that.


2.- Women aren't capable soldiers for combat purposes.

That has never been true. There aren't any examples where women soldiers have been employed and shown themselves unsuitable for combat, barring situations where they were untrained (ie. thrown in as last ditch effort) or where the men were also unsuitable.

And there are plenty of reports of homosexual acts (which both heterosexuals and homosexuals willingly engaged in) occuring during WW2, particularly in Britain. Yet they didn't cause a problem.

1.- Reports?
2.- How do you know?

No study, but experiences like this are abundant, both in documentaries and on the web:

Cave's experience was typical of the sudden relaxed attitude towards lesbians and gays in the services. Faced with the danger of German invasion and the need to maximise combat strength, military chiefs unofficially waived their objections to homosexuals in uniform. Even soldiers caught having gay sex rarely suffered severe punishment. A few got off with a reprimand and warning from their commanding officer. Some were hastily transferred to a new unit. Others were assigned to hard labour for a few weeks to 'knock the queerness out of them' and turn them into 'real men'.

Cave recalls that neither the top brass nor fellow soldiers showed any concern about gay enlistees.

"There were none of the anti-gay witch-hunts we had after WW2", he told me. "Homosexual soldiers were more or less accepted".

"The visible gays were mostly drag performers in concert teams. Regarded with considerable affection, their camp humour helped lift the men's spirits".

Contrary to the later fears of the generals, during WW2 there was no evidence that homosexual soldiers undermined unit cohesion:

"All the gays and straights worked together as a team. We had to because our lives might have depended on it", said Cave.

Cave noted there was never any disciplinary action taken against gay men in his unit:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/ww2peopleswar/stories/36/a2688636.shtml


Quote:
If recruiters and drill sergeants succumb to it, what makes you think that soldiers in combat will be any different?

Because combat and non combat roles are different.

Which only strengthens my point.

No, it doesn't. You are saying non combat situations cause people to focus on differences less than when they are facing life and death situations where they all depend on each other. It makes no sense.

It's like black soldiers in the past. The differences disappear in the heat of battle.


Quote:
Also, from what I've read the Israelis tried women in combat and stopped the practice because of problems it caused.



Nope, their roles are increasing:

http://www.boston.com/news/world/article...eli_front/

http://www.washingtontimes.com/world/200...-9968r.htm

I'm not surprised to learn that, however I don't expect good results.

Yet so far they've only had good results.


Quote:
Just imagine for a second... you have a platoon of grunts in combat for 3 months on the ragged edge. They've lost many killed and wounded and are on their last nerve. The resupply chopper comes in with supplies and 4 replacements, 3 of which are women. Are you honestly going to tell me that the situation won't be ripe for trouble?

The issue is?

If you can ask that, you're either deeply in PC denial or just out of touch with reality, no offense intended.


Many soviet women were highly decorated, and many were fighting alongside men, and some were known for being particularly ruthless and torturing captured enemies.

Why you think men can handle being around women in non combat roles, but think that, when bullets are flying at them, they're not going to be able to think about anything but sex is beyond me.