Can We Solve Sex Related Problems in the Military?

Recently there have been a spate of incidents reported by the press concerning supposed sexual abuse and sexual misconduct by our Armed Forces. An old Gunnery Sergeant I once had told me not to complain about a problem unless I was prepared to find a solution to it. So that is what I want to do. I ask you to assist me.

In response to a comment I received on my post "Sex Assaults on Military Reported Abroad", I decided to explore the issue of sexual harassment and sexual assault in the military. We know it happens, but why does it happen? What are the underlying causes for it? How can we prevent it?

Deanndra commented about women who are sexually approached or "violated" by men they are drinking with:

"All I'm saying is that things like this can really happen, even with people you trust."

She recognizes human nature for what it is - sex is a basic human urge that must be satisfied. For some the urge is very strong. The reality is everyone in the military is a human being. So why aren't the differences between men and women being accounted for? Could the new, more sensitive military be the reason for this happening? Could we be victims of social experimentation and "re-education"?

This controversy is nothing new. In November of 1997, James H. Anderson, Ph.D. of the Heritage Foundation wrote a piece entitled, Boot Camp or Summer Camp? Restoring Rigorous Standards to Basic Training, which discussed these issues at length. In his article he suggested that Congress pass legislation to regulate and reform some of the gender issues that negatively affected the Armed Forces. In it he acknowledged that even though the military has addressed the sexual question ad nauseum, the problem still exists.

According to the Army, the answer is leadership. Defining predatory sexual abuse and harassment as a "leadership deficiency," however, begs the question of why leadership broke down in the first place. Moreover, the Army first publicized regulations against sexual harassment in 1981. The services all announced "zero tolerance" of sexual harassment in the aftermath of the Tailhook scandal. "Since then," as the Army's Senior Review Panel Report observes, "numerous policy memoranda by the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of the Army, and the Army Chief of Staff have emphasized that sexual harassment will not be tolerated and that successful mission accomplishment can only be achieved in an environment of mutual respect, dignity, and fair treatment." Despite such unequivocal policy statements, recruits have been abused by drill instructors and have engaged in sexual misconduct with other trainees.

Instead of fixating on "leadership" as a panacea, the military forces should consider the gender-integrated environments within which they expect their leaders to perform. As James Webb has observed, "No edict from above will ever eliminate sexual activity when men and women are thrust together at close quarters." This fact explains not only the problems in basic training, but also the high pregnancy rates aboard Navy ships.

Perhaps it's the reason for mud wrestling as well. Anderson also suggests that tougher standards in military basic training or boot camp, and rescinding the failed policy of gender integration in basic training and pure combat environments would go far to instill greater discipline, and be a partial answer to the problem. He sights the US Marine Corps' historic success with its non gender-integrated approach to recruit training.

Transforming civilians into disciplined military personnel is complicated enough without injecting a sexual dynamic into the equation. The Marine Corps' commonsense decision to keep the sexes apart during basic training has concrete advantages over gender-integrated training. Specifically, it:

• Eliminates the potential for predatory sexual abuse of female recruits by male drill instructors.
• Reduces the risk of misconduct among trainees. As explained by Secretary of the Navy John H. Dalton, keeping the sexes apart "gives new and vulnerable recruits the opportunity to focus on Marine standards of behavior without the unwanted stress of gender differences they would face in a gender-integrated boot camp."
• Provides female drill instructors as positive role models for female recruits.

"As soon as they get off the bus, we give them someone they want to be like," explained Lt. Col. Angie Salinas, commander of the female 4th Recruit Training Battalion. As Gen. Charles Krulak, commandant of the Marine Corps, emphasized last April,

"I've talked to women down at recruit training and they said in no uncertain terms we want to look up to a role model that we can identify with. We want to look up and see the battalion commander is a woman. We want to see the drill instructor that they someday want to be, to be a woman. We'll see enough guys in the next four years or 40."

Marine Private Sara Turner offers a revealing perspective on the contrast between Army and Marine basic training. First, she enlisted in the Army and went through gender-integrated training. Then, after completing her obligation to the Army, she joined the Marine Corps. In comparing the two experiences, she asserted that, during Army basic training, there was "more tension between males and females. In your free time you'll be trying to get your gear all high and tight, and sometimes you'll get unwanted attention, men wanting to talk to you." At Parris Island, one of the Marine Corps' two boot camps, she found the standards higher and the situation a "lot better."

If you are truly interested in this subject, and refuse to be a victim of the mainstream media's hype. I recommend you take the time to read his entire article. I agree with most, if not all, of what he has to say. Take the time to get this discussion going with people you know. Then write your representative in Congress and tell him/her what you think.