Of Criminals and U.S. Military Traditions
Here is a thought provoking edit in The New York Times: “The Iraq war has plunged the Army into a vicious cycle of declining standards. Multiple, extended tours of duty have sapped morale and blighted recruiting. New plans for a larger overall force could reduce pressures but would also mean that recruiters would have to meet higher quotas.
“To keep filling the ranks, the Army has had to keep lowering its expectations. Diluting educational, aptitude and medical standards has not been enough. Nor have larger enlistment bonuses plugged the gap. So the Army has found itself recklessly expanding the granting of “moral waivers,â€? which let people convicted of serious misdemeanors and even some felonies enlist in its ranks…
“Most of last year’s Army waivers were for serious misdemeanors, like aggravated assault, robbery, burglary and vehicular homicide. But around 900 — double the number in 2003 — were for felonies. Worse, the Army does no systematic tracking of recruits with waivers once it signs them up, and it does not always pay enough attention to any adjustment problems.
“Without adequate monitoring and counseling, handing out guns to people who have already committed crimes poses a danger to the other soldiers they serve with and to the innocent civilians they are supposed to protect.”
Anyone listening/interested in this warning?
15 Responses to “Of Criminals and U.S. Military Traditions”
Armies have always needed a % of bloodlusters to do the dirty work. Even good guy generals- MacArthur or Ike, have massive amounts of innocent blood on their hands.
A look at ex-military bloggers will show that the Abu Graib mindset has always been, whether it was the Calleys in Vietnam, or the Custers of the 19th C.
Given that the New York Times is the source of this story, I thought it suspicious. They clearly have an agenda in playing this story.
Upon further research – which is difficult as the MSM and MichaelMoore crowd have endlessly replicated this meme in recent days – things were not quite as the NYT suggests.
“Army and Defense Department officials defended the waiver program as a way to admit young people who may have made a mistake early in life but have overcome past behavior. And they said about two-thirds of the waivers granted by the Marine Corps are for drug use….”
Think about the implications of the New York Times editorial. If you are have a criminal conviction you are an EX-CON for life. No redemption. You are a sinner and you will be damned.
It is interesting that the NYT, in its eagerness to hammer Bush by any means necessary, is tossing its liberal ideology out the window. Criminals are criminals FOR LIFE!!!! Hell, why are they even allowed out of prison. They should all be shot!
Cosmoetica makes a good point. These people will be fighting, and doing dirty work. Think about the last Good War – that of the so-called “Greatest Generation” – how many of those had criminal priors?
I reread the editorial again, and was astonished to note the closing comment:
“Without adequate monitoring and counseling, handing out guns to people who have already committed crimes poses a danger to the other soldiers they serve with and to the innocent civilians they are supposed to protect.�
The NYT is again showing its absolute ignorance of the armed forces. Soldiers are not “supposed to protect” “innocent civilians”!!
Clearly, the Time believes soldiers are essentially the police with bigger guns…paid for the US government to “serve and protect” the people of Iraq.
Soldiers fight wars. That is their primary function…not “protecting innocent civilians.”
The New York Times…amazing….
I’m sorry to make a third post, but I am appalled by this editorial, which is remarkably devious and calculated.
Of course, the Times declares (in the liberal “We support our troops” mode) that there is a long tradition of young Americans turning their lives around in the armed forces.
Then they drop a statistic like: “In the last three years, more than 125,000 moral waivers have been granted by America’s four military services.”
As I noted above, most of the Marine Corps waivers have been for drug convictions (mostly marijuana).
Does the Times note this? No. They just drop the GREAT BIG NUMBER with no explanation of its size…and then say “We support our troops.”
A devious, calculated hit on the military as a stand-in for Bush.
There will clearly never be anything good in America in the view of the Times until a Democrat is in the White House…and then suddenly you will hear NOTHING more about these stories.
Maybe if Simone Ledeen and Joe Kristol volenteered like McClown and Webb sons the Weakly Standards wouldn’t have to be lowered.
“..a way to admit young people who may have made a mistake early in life but have overcome past behavior”
–
The tale of the young man ‘straightened out’ by a stint in the military is common enough to be a literary cliche.
If the claim is that the military is now actively engaged in social policies, then this concern for the youth should not crop un only when it’s diffcult to meet recruitment goals. It should be part of the permanent recruitment guidelines.
Otherwise, it’s simply an emergency bandaid nad no high morals apply.
The NYT is again showing its absolute ignorance of the armed forces. Soldiers are not “supposed to protect� “innocent civilians�!!
Clearly, the Time believes soldiers are essentially the police with bigger guns…paid for the US government to “serve and protect� the people of Iraq.
Soldiers fight wars. That is their primary function…not “protecting innocent civilians.�
And they fight wars to protect “innocent civilians” at home from the enemy. And in a guerilla war the military must often take on police functions to defeat the enemy. Guerillas aren’t stupid enough (usually) to take on a larger opponent in an open, set-piece battle
To a degree, I agree with Marlowecan–soldiers are primarily trained to fight wars, not be the police. Thus, they tend to be ill-suited to humanitarian and guerilla conflicts.
Marlowecan shows that he believes in the Donald Rumsfeld school of military doctrine with his post.
This attitude is precisely why we are where we are at in Iraq today. It reflects the belief that kicking ass and then going away to let the chips fall where they may is a workable system. It isn’t, of course and the failure to realize that yes, we are going to have to protect innocent civilians, the remains of their infrastructure and those who are trying to rebuild infrastructure is a major part of this fiasco. Isn’t it amazing how many people haven’t learned that lesson?
Jim- Marlowe is right.
Soldiers are trained to kill.
The reason Iraq is a hellhole is because all we sent were soldiers- not diplomats, Americorps, people who knew how to rebuild an infrastructure.
While the sending of soldiers was a bad choice, the lack of the real workers to go right in was an even bigger blunder- thanls W, Donny & Dick!
What we did was effectively a coup d’etat; we were not prepared for a real war. This is why we ‘lost’ Vietnam. In that sense, Goldwater was right- war is an extreme circumstance, one of the few times extreme measures are needed. It’s all or naught- kill them all b4 they kill you. Once it’s over, then rebuild, but one cannot rebuild while a war rages.
If a nation’s not ready to commit to the mass murder war requires it shd seek other remedies- such as treating 9/11 not as a war against an invisible enemy, but a criminal action. This misunderstanding of what 9/11 was is why we’re here now.
And, please do not reply that the mercenaries from Halliburton, et ali, are the sorts of people needed to rebuild.
It’s all or naught- kill them all b4 they kill you
That seems a tad too extreme, and also impractical. In how many conflicts has the victor suceeded in killing all or even a majority of its opponents?
And then there’s the question of “them”. Who is “them?”. Enemy frontline soldiers? Enemy soldiers in supporting roles? The enemy civilian population? Armed guerillas? Unarmed supporters of the guerillas?
Alan- the point is to commit to that position. Most defeated parties capitulate long before that’s necessary, but Sherman was right that war must be total or not waged.
Maybe its just me, but I’d rather not think about our armed forces as a band of armed thugs. One of the things that I’ve admired about our military men and women, is that they’ve tried to help rebuild a country that has been in chaos. They may not be trained to police an area or engage in nation-building, but they’ve gone above and beyond what their usual duties are.
But the reality is that there have always been men who slaver to inflict harm, esp. under legal cover. They may not be the majority, but they are not an aberration.