No more “Boys will be boys”

Richard Schmidt Living and Learning
Posted 6/11/13

John McCain is an American hero, and I mean a hero of the old type — not someone who can throw a football or smile into a movie camera, but a man who did something courageous and sacrificial.

The son and grandson of U.S. Navy admirals, McCain …

This item is available in full to subscribers.

Subscribe to continue reading. Already a subscriber? Sign in

Local reporters keeping you informed across the Alabama Gulf Coast.

You can cancel anytime.
 

Please log in to continue

Log in

No more “Boys will be boys”

Posted

John McCain is an American hero, and I mean a hero of the old type — not someone who can throw a football or smile into a movie camera, but a man who did something courageous and sacrificial.

The son and grandson of U.S. Navy admirals, McCain became a naval aviator. He was shot down over Hanoi in 1967 and endured five and a half years in a prisoner of war camp where he was often tortured but did not crack. Finally offered early release, he declined because other prisoners had been held longer. That’s a real hero. McCain’s loyalty to our nation’s soldiers is beyond question. He would have made a fine President of the United States.

Last week McCain, now a U.S. Senator from Arizona and a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, was speaking to the chiefs of staff from all four branches of the U.S. armed services at a committee hearing. “Just last night,” he said, “a woman came to me, and said her daughter wanted to join the military, and could I give my unqualified support for her doing so. I could not.”

One wouldn’t expect that response from John McCain. McCain feared the woman’s daughter would be harmed, but not by enemy combatants. He feared for her safety because of what other U.S. soldiers might do to her. He thought they might rape her.

There’s a history of sexual abuse and misconduct in the military. I remember the Tailhook scandal in 1981 in which over a hundred Navy and Marine officers sexually assaulted 83 women and men at the Las Vegas Hilton. Then there was the assault on Army recruits at the Aberdeen Proving Ground in 1996 and the attempted rapes at the Air Force Academy in 2003.

Following each of these incidents the military brass said they’d investigate and handle it. But nothing changed. The Pentagon estimates that 26,000 servicemen and women were sexually assaulted by one of their peers last year. Less than 1 percent of those incidents resulted in a court-martial conviction.

Most sexual assaults were not reported. Why? General John F. Amos, commandant of the Marine Corps knows. “They don’t trust the command,” he admitted to the Senate committee. The victims feared they would be tagged as troublemakers and denied a promotion. So they said nothing. It still goes on.

The Senate Armed Services Committee is finally shining a light on this outrage. Perhaps that’s because 20 of the 100 senators are now women, the largest number ever, and seven of those women serve on the Armed Services Committee. One of them, Claire McCaskill of Missouri, looked the top brass in the eye last week and said, “Women are not going to be turned away on this one.”

Let’s hope not. But that’s what the top brass would like. The committee is considering a bill introduced by Senator Kirsten Gillibrand of New York to remove prosecutions for sex crimes from the military chain of command and entrust them to independent military prosecutors and judges.

That’s what the British do. But our commanders say that to take any responsibility from them would undermine morale, good order, and discipline. Yeah. Sure.

Our military doesn’t need to protect its morale, good order, and discipline. With 26,000 sexual assaults in one year, nearly all of them swept under the rug, that horse left the barn some time ago. What we need is to restore the morale, good order, and discipline that presumably existed before the top brass began taking a “Boys will be boys” attitude toward rapists.

If I were a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I’d ask the chiefs of staff three questions:

What do you plan to do to insure the safety of our women and men in arms from sexual attacks by their peers?

When will you do it?

How will you be held accountable for doing it?

If they could not answer those questions satisfactorily, I’d tell them good-bye and vote with Senator Gillibrand (and probably Senator McCain) to take that responsibility from them and entrust it to others who in time of danger would stand by those who risk their lives for our country.

Richard H. Schmidt is a retired Episcopal priest, editor and author who lives in Fairhope. He can be reached at courier@gulfcoastnewspapers.com.