Military forced to lower standards once again

November 7, 2007

With military recruiting still struggling badly, the Pentagon wants to make it even easier for people with criminal records to join the military.

The review, in its early stages, comes as the number of Army recruits needing waivers for bad behavior — such as trying drugs, stealing, carrying weapons on school grounds and fighting — rose from 15 percent in 2006 to 18 percent this year. And it reflects the services’ growing use of criminal, health and other waivers to build their ranks.

Overall, about three in every 10 recruits must get a waiver, according to Pentagon statistics obtained by AP, and about two-thirds of those approved in recent years have been for criminal behavior.

This comes as more “moral waivers” are being issued, which go to recruits with records that include aggravated assault, burglary, robbery, and vehicular homicide.

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 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. “And in 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 solution the Pentagon won’t, or can’t consider.

The military needs more volunteers, and is willing to even let recruits with criminal backgrounds sign up, but gays are still out of the question. It just doesn’t make any sense.

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.

November 7, 2007 at 10:14 am

“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.”

Well, maybe gays are quite happy not to be used as cannon fodder for Bush’s illegal wars. I would be.

And I am sure the right wing gas bags are going crazy over the lowering of standards and how it is threatening national security and military morale and readiness. You know, just like they did when they let women in.

Another thing to consider is that when those soldiers who have criminal records return home, they will get federal jobs because of veteran’s preference.

This cannot be surprising as Mr. Bush has been avoiding the draft like the plague. Far be it for Americans from well to do families to have to fight his conflict or at least come up with an excuse why they won’t as Mr. Bush’s cabinet did. No, just send the National Guard over for 3 or 4 tours and then finally realize you have to boost regular Army and Marines so just lower the standards. Oh wait, let’s just contract the whole war out so all of the Mr. Bush’s friends can bilk us out of tax dollars.

Of course, when someone with a known criminal history commits an atrocity – rape or murder of an Iraqi civilian – perhaps the officer who approved the waiver should be held criminally and financially liable for the act. Then lets see how many waiver gambles we take. (yeah, I know its a silly idea – I mean, the victims are just Iraqis, and they really don’t count, right?)

There is another, although more technical issue, in these Category 4 waivers: the incidence of PTSD will increase as a result. Studies are very clear that soldiers who suffered abuse as children will have a greater propensity towards PTSD (there is also a genetic component that is probably higher in this population too.) At present the administration is solving the problem by stating that soldiers with PTSD had a “pre-existing personality disorder” thereby not only avoiding any responsibility for their care, but keeping them from getting any VA benefits even though they have put themselves in harm’s way.

Of course, if you have a criminal record, you automatically have a personality disorder until proven otherwise in this scheme. Typical of the present administration.

I am a long term reservist with substantial active duty service. There was a time after Viet Nam when a similar situation was present (Cat4 at 30% or so) and it was a disaster. It took a good ten years to replenish the mid-level officer and non-commissioned corps as a result. The same will be true now unless radical surgery, in the form of getting out of the Iraq mess, occurs.

The increase in Cat4 is a symptom, not a cause, of the impending implosion of our military. Shame on the Bush administration!

And I wonder which group of soldier, those without criminal backgrounds or those with violent/major criminal records, will be more likely to cause problems in the field by shooting up innocent civilians without provocation.

During my time in the army (Vietnam era), I served both with gay people (they didn’t tell, I didn’t ask) and thugs. A thug in the military is a disaster for morale. The gay guys were good, dependable people.

How can Republicans, who claim to favor strong national defense as one of their prime directives, support this systematic destruction of our military forces? Whose side are they on?

“Moral waivers” – don’t we already have this covered with Blackwater?

Can someone please ask Bush if he needed a moral waiver to be president? Seems like his criminal background and penchant for blithely killing people on death row should have required one.

I’m sure the good people in the military love having moral deviants watching their backs. The only thing they would love more would be another stint in Iraq.

Can you say “hemmoraging good soldiers”?

“And in 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.”

Too bad we can’t return to flogging.

The name of the game is to let the Dim-Dems take the hit for a draft.

What motivation there would be for anyone gay to pariticpate in our militaristic adventures is a mystery. It certainly wouldn’t be ready access to sex. Gay sex is readily available just about anywhere there days. A gay person would also have to have a “pre-existing personality disorder” to voluntarily deal with thugs, criminals, and the mentally ill on a daily basis in the miliary.

This is really awful. 40 years ago, the military allowed people like this to enlist and it was encouraged in the name of “giving them a chance to find themselves.” Unfortunately, all it usually meant was that the little gangsters all found each other and founded new gangs within their unit, and started preying on the non-gangsters as they had done before joining the military. This was always swept under the carpet by command, so long as it didn’t get “out of hand,” but the result was sometimes close to intolerable for the worthwhile members of the unit. And it caused scandals discussed throughout the branch of service when it got out of hand, as it did several times I know of personally.

In Vietnam, these were the kind of people generally involved in most of the war crimes, as was demonstrated with the members of Calley’s unit at My Lai – a unit of criminals and (literal) morons led by a cretin. One need only look at what kind of soldier was involved with Steven Green in the rape and murder of an Iraqi girl last year to see that these sorts of recruits are more trouble than they’re worth – sorry, but criminals will be criminals will be criminals, and giving them guns, local authority, and a command structure that has proven itself incapable of holding its criminals accountable for their crimes (as witness the Marines with the Haditha massacre), is a recipe for moral disaster.

As always, the simple answer is that the Pentagon does what Congress has required. When Congress removes the requirement for the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy it’ll be fair to blame the Pentagon.

Rich (12): You stated that, “What motivation there would be for anyone gay to pariticpate in our militaristic adventures is a mystery. It certainly wouldn’t be ready access to sex.”

Have you ever asked a gay vet what his or her motivation was for joining? Mine included money for college, a guaranteed ticket away from a dysfunctional religious family, a chance to see the world outside America, and following in my gradfathers’ footsteps (both WWII vets). Sounds pretty similar to the reasons that straight folks join.

It breaks my heart to hear that some of the best people I’ve ever met are being forced to serve with criminals, thugs, and social scum of the lowest sort. And I’m not just referring to Republicans.

While expanding Cat4 participation in the militray is already reaping what it has sown in terms of discipline and morale problems, the bigger mess may arrive years down the road when they return home from war. Taking someone with preexisting anti-social behaviors, teaching them how to efficiently kill people, innoculating them with PTSD or other war-related issues and then turning them loose back into society will be just like sending out IEDs randomly into America. This doesn’t bode well for America in the long term.

If the military keeps getting it’s ass handed to it by the President in the form of declaring war on a new nation every few years, there won’t be a choice – Congress very well might be forced into reinstating the draft. No resistance here on that one. Bring back the draft and see how many wars our elected leader’s constituents support.

Great. When this b.s. produces some unholy hybrid of Tim McVeigh and John Mohammed and he blows up 12 buildings and eats a bus full of orphans, the fine minds in the military can say “At least we kept the gays out!”

As always, when this topic comes up, I must post information about countries that do/do not discriminate based on orientation.

For extra bonus points, count the the number of red countries that GWBushenfuhrer has called evil.

You got to be kidding me. Are you guys that self centered and what not to think that the only people with criminal backrounds are bad. What you dont understand is you have to have a waiver for simple stuff like speeding tickets or say writing a bad check. What about the people that are poor and/or homeless that want to join the military to try to turn their life around and actually have a chance at being something other then a stain on society? Or the ones that did live lives that weren’t “morally” correct because they did what they had to at the time to survive and now have families that they can’t take care of because corp. morons in a big office and silver spoon in their ass think that a few bad mistakes say 6 years ago has ruined a person for life. I know I fall into that category in a few different ways. Now granted they are misdemeanors and not felonies but it still has managed to block my entrance for the time being without blantenly lieing to get in. Which would you prefer to have beside in a time when you have rpgs exploding in front of you and bullets whizzing over your head someone that never had to fight for everything they got and did what it took for him/her and their family to survive or a kid that was naieve enough to think of war with a kind of romance read about in novels and even school. I’d pick the fighter personally.

Comments are closed.