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.

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.

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.

Bones:

Angela may have been a bit hyperbolic, but she is correct.

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

All of these are changes enacted since the Vietnam era, which was the context for Shaun’s anecdote about his basic training company.

Nearly 12 percent of Army recruits who entered basic training this year needed a special waiver for those with criminal records, a dramatic increase over last year and 2 1/2 times the percentage four years ago, according to new Army statistics obtained by the Globe.

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.

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.

It’s also a last choice for criminals whose only alternative is jail.

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.