A Warrior Loves Peace More Than Anything. Then There’s Steven Green
On Monday, I revisited the tragic story of Abeer Qassim Hamza, the 13-year-old Iraqi girl who was repeatedly raped and along with her parents and sister, murdered by a posse of U.S. soldiers led by Private First Class Steven Green, a 21-year-old boy-man with homicidal tendencies and a criminal record of which the Army was well aware.
My commentary got a fair number of initial hits, but like the waves emanating out from a pebble tossed into a pond, it has gotten more and more day by day.
Because of the interest in what I unabashedly offer is one of the more visceral accounts of the horrors visited upon Abeer and her family, as well as the enormous stress that our fighting men and women have been put under in this awful war, I turned to friend and co-blogger Dr. Clarissa Pinkola Estés for her take on Green and what can happen to men and women at arms.
As Joe would say, Dr. E’s response is a must-read. (Bad previous link has been fixed.)
15 Responses to “A Warrior Loves Peace More Than Anything. Then There’s Steven Green”
It’s such a sickening story, but we all know that the Army is not just comprised of people who love their country or want to get a college education. It’s also a last choice for criminals whose only alternative is jail. Men like Green sully the reputation of all those soldiers fighting, losing limbs and dying everyday EVERYWHERE. And in their defense, Americans should be outraged and be in full and vocal support of their punishment. Our worthy soldiers deserve that.
This was a horrible crime and I am disgusted that it happened. But your comment is absurd, whether on purpose or from ignorance, that doesn’t have any connection with reality.
Bones:
Angela may have been a bit hyperbolic, but she is correct.
Three of the 40 or so lads in my Vietnam War-era basic training company were there because judges gave them a choice of jail or enlisting. Two others had criminal records but enlisted on waivers, one of whom later earned the Silver Star, got a battlefield commission and retired a bird colonel.
Because the Army has been forced to lower its enlistment standards because of the strains Bush’s Forever War have put on it, the same situation pretty much exists today. Get over it.
The fact that enlistment standards have been lowered does not mean that they have been eliminated.
Unlike the Vietnam era, there is now hard law that prohibits people from being forced to enlist as an alternative to jail. Enlistees are specifically asked on multiple occasions if their enlistment was coerced by such means. If it was, the enlistment can be voided and both recruiters and judges subject to sanctions.
By law, felony criminal record is a disqualification for enlistment in the military. Even serious misdemeanors are an impediment for many military jobs.
None of this stops people from committing criminal acts after they join and there will always be racists and criminals that come out into the open some time after basic training. I ran into one of those in the Air Force in the late 1980s. But to say that the status quo all-volunteer military is the “same situation” as the Vietnam era conscript military is grossly inaccurate.
It is nonetheless an interesting question whether the military or civilians control changes over enlistment standards. For my own research (I am currently writing a chapter on the all-volunteer force), I’ll need to look further into what the exact rules are and who makes them. But I am quite certain that the above characterizations about criminals in the current (as opposed to Vietnam era) military are exaggerated.
Jason,
What about this story from the Boston Globe?
The fact that they needed a waiver proves that there are rules in place that inhibit entry by those with criminal records. Those with felony convictions are barred completely. And judges cannot coerce defendants into the military as an alternative to jail.
All of these are changes enacted since the Vietnam era, which was the context for Shaun’s anecdote about his basic training company.
Chris – the majority of those waivers were issued for minor drug offenses, which come courtesy of the War on Drugs, which is another waste of national resources.
So was the misrepresentation deliberate or ignorance? The bad thing about using crap statements to try and make a point is that any point is lost in the aftermath. Of course the main point here was “Bush is evil” as most/all of Shauns posts so I guess discussion is irrelevant.
Shaun Mullen said
Maybe 30 years ago but what has that to due with your post. Since your emphasis seems to how Bush is a surrogate rapist what does Vietnam era recruiting have to do with the current situation. That statement is clearly not true of today’s military so why would you defend it’s usage?
As an aside “neoconservative coven”? It really make it hard to take something that includes that statement seriously. That doesn’t even take into account those who belong to covens who would really get pissed at the comparison
Bones – that you would even cast such aspirations at Shaun. For shame. After all, he has Journalistic Integrity!
Whether or not the lowered standards for eligibilty relate to this particular incident is not clear. Logically, though, when standards for memberhip are changed, the makeup of the membership changes, and it would be interesting to know exactly how the military profile has changed.
While getting all excited about standarfs, the core of this incident is shamefully overlooked in the comments. The fact remains that a man with known homicidal fantasies was only given a pill along with his gun and then sent out to deal with the stress of combat situations. What kind of standard is that?
The system of giving recruiters bronuses according to how many bodies they can sign up also seems highly suspect to me. The potential is certainly there for corrupting the standards of the recruiters. A number of cases of recruiter misbehavior have been reported, but I don;t know how aggfressive the top brass are in weeding out overreach by recruiters.
Rather than getting all hung up on side issues, the focus should be on the question on how this man ended up in a situation where he could act on his worst psychotic urges. Incidents like this undermine the entire military (and national) effort in Iraq. Reading comments that skip this issue entirely, leads me to wonder whetre our own moral standards are.
I had some expertise in an issue and an opportunity to correct some misinformation that was out there. To have my efforts to do so characterized as “shameful” and indicative of degraded “moral standards” is rude and offensive. That is not mitigated by the fact that such responses are exceedingly common around here — in fact, they are the default tone on TMV comment threads most of the time from commenters on both the right and the left.
It is impossible to address every possible aspect of an issue simultaneously in a post or in a comment. Such a demand is NOT made uniformly anyway, but rather it is always made exclusively against the “other side” of an ideological divide.
Since no matter what someone does focus on it is always responded to with “you ignored this other aspect of the issue, so you are being dishonest/immoral”, I have been forced to the conclusion that it is not worthwhile to even try any more, especially since one of the primary practitioners of the tactic is someone who was formerly one of the few commenters who actually engaged differing perspectives. Obviously, the disease is spreading.
I will not reply to TMV comments any further as long as this pattern continues to dominate.
Jason,
First of all, I was not speaking to you personally. and I have no idea why you would assume such a thing. You are not the one who posted this, after all, nor the only one who posted a comment.
I am disturbed, though, that on a post about a horrencous event, the incident itself elicited scant reactions, and that observation extends to those regular readers of TMV who didn’t comment at all.
Incidents like this are very damaging to the US and IMO we should care deeply about how they come to pass.
Since I don’t understand your personal and highly emotional reactions to many comments,, on this and on other threads, I can’t address that. You will deal with it as you see fit.
If it makes you feel any better Jason, I’m pretty sure he casting “shame” on all of us.
Dom what can you say? Really how could I impart how horrible this is to me? But as I said when you take a incident like that and then use it as a blanket condemnation, which it is plain that was the intent, then the original poster was obviously not trying to discuss this case but rather some “bigger” issue. The “neoconservative coven†or whatever. You then think because the absurd and incorrect facts being pointed out is somehow equal to the “core” of the post being “shamefully overlooked”. Get real!!!!! If that was the core then someone please post some real info for a real discussion about what to do without equating Bush to a Rapist. Did the people who treated him know of these “Homicidal” fantasies? To what extent? Did their response follow military guidelines? Was this negligence or just a horrible part of life?