Skip to main content

View Diary: Military sexual assault numbers rise—and gain a great poster boy (137 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  The military hasn't had any meaningful (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LSophia, Ginny in CO, zinger99, DSPS owl

    civilian oversight since Bush I.

    But the point of my comment was that given the track record on assaults the military is not doing even an adequate job of keeping its own house clean.  The job this this man was doing should be given to an outsider and that outsider should be given sweeping powers to address the problem of assaults - and not just those of the sexual nature, either.

    •  the actors on NCIS (0+ / 0-)

      would probably be more effective than whoever they've got enforcing the law these days.

    •  If the current administration chooses not to (0+ / 0-)

      exercise it's responsibility, then it should be called to task.

      The structure is set up, and Joint Chiefs serve at the pleasure of the President.  

      Under the Bush Administration,two  Joint Chiefs were forced to resign under the weight of scandal.

      LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

      by dinotrac on Tue May 07, 2013 at 08:03:36 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  What? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        lcbo

        So you expect the President of the United States to review 26,000 reports of sexual assault annually?

        Look - here's the deal - it is pretty obvious that the military is doing a shit job of policing itself on this front - and probably some others - it is time to basically tell them that some civilians are going to be doing oversight until such time as the organization gets cleaned up.  It is a mess.

        •  Try reading again. (0+ / 0-)

          There is a whole list of civilians involved in overseeing the military, and there are military commanders who serve at the pleasure of civilians.

          LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

          by dinotrac on Tue May 07, 2013 at 08:33:09 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  You are missing the point entirely. (5+ / 0-)

            The military needs a unit of neutral parties who preferably would NOT have served in the military and would ideally have some experience with assault prevention to turn this trend around.

            •  Neutral parties -- Now that's an interesting (0+ / 0-)

              thought.

              Where would these neutral parties exist?
              How would they get the jobs?

              More seriously: why do you think a lack of military experience is a good thing for people who must work with and understand the military culture?

              I would liken it to the role of regulators in the recent West, TX plant explosion.  If I've got people regulating a fertilizer plant, I sure would like somebody who understands the dangers that lurk there and be smart enough to know that claims not to have dangerous levels of highly explosive materials are, if you'll pardon the expression, just blowing smoke.

              LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

              by dinotrac on Tue May 07, 2013 at 08:40:42 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  If we go with your plan, we just (7+ / 0-)

                end up with another bad actor put in charge of sexual assault prevention like this one who was arrested in Arlington.

                Senator Gillibrand is on MSNBC right now saying that she thinks that this oversight "needs to be taken away from the Chain of Command".  She was unequivocal in making her point.  She and I agree.

                •  What plan? (0+ / 0-)

                  I never put forward a plan.

                  I remain curious where these so-called "neutral parties" come from.

                  LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

                  by dinotrac on Tue May 07, 2013 at 10:26:21 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  There are people in America who work (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    LSophia, DSPS owl

                    with both victims and offenders n the sexual assault arena.  They are people who have no career advancement aspirations in the military system and if properly empowered could be helpful in cleaning up the military on this front.

                    •  I'm still intrigued with this idea of neutral. (0+ / 0-)

                      Sounds like the people you describe are advocates, which isn't neutral at all.

                      Advocates are a good thing -- you sure as hell want them in battered women's shelters, counseling, etc.

                      But not neutral.

                      LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

                      by dinotrac on Tue May 07, 2013 at 12:24:30 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  I'm intrigued with the idea that you (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        DSPS owl

                        seem to be so clueless about why this problem is so persistent and epidemic at this point.

                        The internal reporting structure works against the victims.  The internal authorities are often inclined to cover these things up for fear that it would reflect badly on their command. Military culture has not adapted to the more modern view that women should be treated with equality.  There are assaults on men represented in these numbers, as well.  

                        This self-selecting body that we call our military in the current era has grown sicker and sicker over the years.

                        Enlisting people who are not wed to or loyal to protecting the military institutions at the expense of victims of these crime and who are skilled in victim and predator management seems like the only viable plan for changing the trend in this culture.  

                        How many senior military personnel are experts in responding sexual assault crimes?  Some may argue - especially in light of the Arlington arrest - that the military personnel who know anything about sexual assault are the same people who are the predators in these cases. Another good reason to move this clean up initiative outside of the military ranks.

                        •  That's all in your head. (0+ / 0-)

                          Curious, though:

                          How much military experience do you have?

                          I'll admit to being biased.
                          I was a military brat who spent my formative years around military people.
                          Not able to be neutral.

                          LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

                          by dinotrac on Tue May 07, 2013 at 01:14:08 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

              •  Well (4+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                zinger99, LSophia, Hemlock Tea, DSPS owl
                More seriously: why do you think a lack of military experience is a good thing for people who must work with and understand the military culture?
                I'm thinking that the "military culture" is a big part of the problem. So yes, people from outside of that just might be a good idea.

                The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy... the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.

                by lcbo on Tue May 07, 2013 at 09:28:28 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  People from the outside will get nowhere. (0+ / 0-)

                  Fine to have some around, but you need people around who understand the culture if you really want to make progress.

                  Otherwise you get nice type clamshells from folks who see you as the enemy -- which you will be.

                  LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

                  by dinotrac on Tue May 07, 2013 at 10:25:31 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  sure, but clearly the military is not (0+ / 0-)

                    "policing itself" and its internal processes for handling this problem are not working. the processes for handling the problem appear to be there; the will to act and follow through on them is not.

                    you say it is of the utmost importance that the military be allowed to handle this themselves, but clearly they are not. it's the Church all over again; the military's name and reputation is given priority over victims.

                    this is a problem that has been out there in the media for years, and the situation doesn't seem to be improving at all. i understand how opaque the military world is supposed to be to civilians and how we "just don't understand", but at this point it's pretty obvious even to us civvies what's going on in there.

                    Banking on the American people to be able to sort all this out and declare the adult in the room the winner is a very big bet. -Digby

                    by Boogalord on Wed May 08, 2013 at 10:03:53 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site