With military recruiting still struggling, the Pentagon continues to make it even easier for people with criminal records to join the military.
The Army admitted about one-fourth more recruits last year with a record of legal problems ranging from felony convictions and serious misdemeanors to drug crimes and traffic offenses, as pressure to increase the size of U.S. ground forces led the military to grant more waivers for criminal conduct, according to new data released yesterday.
Such “conduct waivers” for Army recruits rose from 8,129 in fiscal 2006 to 10,258 in fiscal 2007. For Marine Corps recruits, they increased from 16,969 to 17,413.
In particular, the Army accepted more than double the number of applicants with convictions for felony crimes such as burglary, grand larceny and aggravated assault, rising from 249 to 511, while the corresponding number for the Marines increased by two-thirds, from 208 to 350.
The good news is, the “vast majority” of the convictions occurred when the recruits were juveniles. The bad news, a handful of waivers have gone to those convicted of sexual assault, making terrorist threats, and in three instances, involuntary manslaughter.
There are a variety of angles to this. First, there’s the blase attitude from the right. The last time the military lowered standards, I saw one conservative blogger write, “Look at it on the bright side: If we are going to lose American soldiers fighting in Iraq I’d rather lose people with criminal records.”
Second, there are ample concerns about the effect on our fighting forces. The AP noted in November that a growing number of Army officers are troubled by the amount of time they now have to devote to disciplinary problems within the ranks: “[I]n a meeting with Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, a number of officers vigorously nodded their heads when he asked if that was a concern.” One officer told Mullen that when he was in Iraq he would spend long hours into the night dealing with “problem children.”
And third, there’s the obvious strain on the military, and the alternatives to increasing “conduct waivers.”
“We’re digging deeper into the barrel than we were before” as a result of the difficult recruiting environment, said a Defense Department official, who requested anonymity because he had not been authorized to speak publicly. “Would I like to see the waivers lower? Yes.”
Well, here’s a crazy idea. If the military needs more patriotic, able-bodied volunteers, and is willing to even let recruits with criminal backgrounds sign up, why not let gays enlist?
I’m reminded of this recent piece from Aaron Belkin, director of the Michael D. Palm Center, a research institute at the University of California, Santa Barbara.
Under its “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, it has fired over 11,000 capable troops, including nearly 1,000 considered mission-critical and over 300 foreign linguists, just because they’re gay. This despite overwhelming evidence that letting known gays serve does not impair cohesion, recruitment or effectiveness.
Yet simultaneously the military accepts those who, according to its own research and standards of review, undermine readiness by virtue of their failure to conform to society’s rules.
For all its insistence that letting gays serve openly would be an unacceptable risk to the military — even if they haven’t engaged in “homosexual conduct” — the Pentagon bends over backwards to create exceptions in the case of ex-convicts, whose actual criminal behavior is defined by having created a disruption. […]
Why does the military give a free ride to those who have proven to be disruptive while it gives the axe to proven soldiers who simply happen to be gay?
I’d love to hear the answer to this question, but I don’t think there is one.
For what it’s worth, Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) is pressing the Pentagon to explain the need for the sharp increase in waivers. He noted yesterday that “concerns have been raised that the significant increase in the recruitment of persons with criminal records is a result of the strain put on the military by the Iraq war and may be undermining military readiness.”
We’ll see what kind of response he gets.