Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
100 words for 100 days: submit your 100 word essay and get published on AlterNet
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Rights and Liberties

Why Soldiers Rape

By Helen Benedict, In These Times. Posted September 13, 2008.


The Culture of misogyny and illegal war acts in the military fuels sexual violence against women in uniform.
Advertisement

Editor's note: This article is adapted from "The Lonely Soldier: The Private War of Women Serving in Iraq," to be published by Beacon Press in April 2009.

An alarming number of women soldiers are being sexually abused by their comrades-in-arms, both at war and at home. This fact has received a fair amount of attention lately from researchers and the press -- and deservedly so.

But the attention always focuses on the women: where they were when assaulted, their relations with the assailant, the effects on their mental health and careers, whether they are being adequately helped, and so on. That discussion, as valuable as it is, misses a fundamental point. To understand military sexual assault, let alone know how to stop it, we must focus on the perpetrators. We need to ask: Why do soldiers rape?

Rape in civilian life is already unacceptably common. One in six women is raped or sexually assaulted in her lifetime, according to the National Institute of Justice, a number so high it should be considered an epidemic.

In the military, however, the situation is even worse. Rape is almost twice as frequent as it is among civilians, especially in wartime. Soldiers are taught to regard one another as family, so military rape resembles incest. And most of the soldiers who rape are older and of higher rank than their victims, so are taking advantage of their authority to attack the very people they are supposed to protect.

Department of Defense reports show that nearly 90 percent of rape victims in the Army are junior-ranking women, whose average age is 21, while most of the assailants are non-commissioned officers or junior men, whose average age is 28.

This sexual violence persists in spite of strict laws against rape in the military and a concerted Pentagon effort in 2005 to reform procedures for reporting the crime. Unfortunately, neither the press nor the many teams of psychologists and sociologists who study veterans ever seem to ask why.

The answer appears to lie in a confluence of military culture, the psychology of the assailants and the nature of war.

Two seminal studies have examined military culture and its attitudes toward women: one by Duke University Law Professor Madeline Morris in 1996, which was presented in the paper "By Force of Arms: Rape, War, and Military Culture" and published in Duke Law Journal; and the other by University of California professor and folklorist Carol Burke in 2004 and explained in her book, Camp All-American, Hanoi Jane and the High-And-Tight: Gender, Folklore and Changing Military Culture (Beacon Press). Both authors found that military culture is more misogynistic than even many critics of the military would suspect. Sometimes this misogyny stems from competition and sometimes from resentment, but it lies at the root of why soldiers rape.

One recent Iraq War veteran reflected this misogyny when he described his Marine Corp training for a collection of soldiers' works called Warrior Writers, published by Iraq Veterans Against the War in 2008:

The [Drill Instructor's] nightly homiletic speeches, full of an unabashed hatred of women, were part of the second phase of boot camp: the process of rebuilding recruits into Marines.

Morris and Burke both show that military language reveals this "unabashed hatred of women" all the time. Even with a force that is now 14 percent female, and with rules that prohibit drill instructors from using racial epithets and curses, those same instructors still routinely denigrate recruits by calling them "pussy," "girl," "bitch," "lady" and "dyke." The everyday speech of soldiers is still riddled with sexist insults.

Soldiers still openly peruse pornography that humiliates women. (Pornography is officially banned in the military, but is easily available to soldiers through the mail and from civilian sources, and there is a significant correlation between pornography circulation and rape rates, according to Duke's Morris. And military men still sing the misogynist rhymes that have been around for decades. For example, Burke's book cites this Naval Academy chant:

Who can take a chainsaw
Cut the bitch in two

Fuck the bottom half

And give the upper half to you

The message in all these insults is that women have no business trying to be soldiers. In 2007, Sgt. Sarah Scully of the Army's 8th Military Police Brigade wrote to me in an e-mail from Kuwait, where she was serving: "In the Army, any sign that you are a woman means you are automatically ridiculed and treated as inferior."

Army Spc. Mickiela Montoya, who was in Iraq for 11 months from 2005-2006, put it another way: "There are only three things the guys let you be if you're a girl in the military: a bitch, a ho or a dyke. One guy told me he thinks the military sends women over to give the guys eye candy to keep them sane. He told me in Vietnam they had prostitutes, but they don't have those in Iraq, so they have women soldiers instead."


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: women, rape, sexual violence, u.s. military

Helen Benedict, a professor of journalism at Columbia University, is author of several books concerning social justice and women. Her writings on women soldiers won the James Aronson Award for Social Justice Journalism in 2008.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Rights and Liberties! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Is there a place for women in the armed forces?
Posted by: cordas on Sep 13, 2008 12:32 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What is the primary purpose of any armed force? Is it possible to go after that aim whilst making the military a safe place for women?

Honestly I don't know, I have no military experience, but it does seem to me that part of building up a fighting force of people who are prepared to do what it takes to win a war that you have to dehumanize both the soldiers and any potentail enemy / object that could stop soldiers doing their duties.

My answer in an ideal world would simply be to abolish the need for miliatary forces, stop brutalizing people and turning them into effective combatants. Mkae love not war and all that gubbins.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» WAR. What is it good for? Posted by: Cathyc
Grim statistics demand accountability
Posted by: Col. Jackleg on Sep 13, 2008 1:19 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Rape is abominable as a concept in any setting and should be met with the harshest criminal sanctions. Rape in the military is but an extension of the sickness that is the serum of military reality in this penal colony. You cannot train the mindless to kill, kill indescriminately in any setting while creating and preserving a chain of command that is utterly craven and expect democracy, justice, fair play and decency to prevail. The military, including the feckless academies and their rampant "tail-gating" history, must be permanently reduced in scale to eliminate the vast military industrial complex from any further growth and importance. It will not happen with the prevalent neocons in power and a public that is too stupid to stop it. The end result is clear...women in America are at risk and the military damned sure is not going to aid them escape capture and abuse.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Saddened but not surprised.
Posted by: VetAgainst McCain on Sep 13, 2008 2:14 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There are two distinct kinds of U.S. military service -- stateside and overseas.

My experience in Southeast Asia during the Vietnam War told me female personnel should always be posted stateside where they can be protected by civilian authorities. Overseas, the ladies are chicks in a coop guarded by wolves.

One more thing. I want to thank AlterNet for improving my retired lifestyle.

Since I began commenting on the best progressive blog ever, I've lost all interest in talking-head TV,- such as my former favorites: MSNBC's "Hardball," Keith Obermann's hoot and most recently, the six p.m. program hosted by Rachel Maddow.

I also ignore the Sunday morning shows -- like "Face the Nation" and "Meet the Press." Happily, I've discovered, the print media, online transcripts and investigative Web sites plus AlterNet provide more than enough information to satisfy my curiosity.

I now have more time during the week for writing, gardening, swimming, seeing movies, shopping with my wife and visiting our kids -- to name a few pleasurable afternoon activities..

Then, at midnight before going to bed and after AlterNet posts its newest articles, I'm back on the blog having fun attacking Manchurian Candidate McCain, Appalling Palin and the rightwing GOP.

I even enjoy jousting with LyingHeart -- I mean, LionHeart.

Have a great weekend, everyone!

Vet against McCain
To find out why, click on the links below:

American View
(now my favorite anti-GOP Web site)
Vietnam Veterans Against McCain
(self-explanatory)
Vote Vets
(maintained by Iraq and Afghan war vets)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Saddened but not surprised. Posted by: politicky
just to add that women in the military can also use sex sadistically
Posted by: Suzon on Sep 13, 2008 3:54 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is an informative and carefully written article. People in groups do things that they would be ashamed to do as individuals and individuals do things in secret that they would not want anyone to know about.

The fact that women can and often do tease and provoke men does not justify a single rape, but it sure does muddy the waters.

One of the best reasons not to wage war is what it does to a nation's own people. The high suicide rate of serving and ex-soldiers gives some indication of the scale of the damage.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

vf
Posted by: vf on Sep 13, 2008 4:16 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Re seminal works on militarism and women see an earlier study than those cited, "Does khaki become you? : the militarisation of women's lives" by Cynthia Enloe. Her book first appeared in the early 1980s and there seem to be plenty of secondhand copies available if it's not still in print.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Misogyny in the Military
Posted by: ChrisBrown on Sep 13, 2008 4:46 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm glad to see an article on this problem. You are right that misogyny continues to be a serious problem in the military.

I served as a military intelligence officer in the Army for eight years. Several times I had to deal with harassment issues. Both my company and the battalion had designated Equal Opportunity (EO) senior noncommissioned officers and officers to handle these cases. I would work with the soldier, the EO leadership, and our battalion's leadership to document the complaint and send it up the chain of command. The Uniformed Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) treats these cases very seriously.

I agree with all of the proposals that were listed near the end. While I was in command, I demanded respect for every soldier regardless of sex, ethnicity, or personal beliefs in our unit. Yet, I would often face horrible attitudes towards women within our battalion and in the rest of the Army.

My only concern with the article is that it seems that the author has no military experience and is writing to an academic audience with a similar lack of background. One of my biggest concerns for the future of our nation is the gap between those who have military experience and those who don't. On the right, the nation's civilian leadership rushes into war not fully understanding the moral, psychological, and practical realities of war. Of course there are right -wing hawks with military experience. When I was serving in the Pentagon during the run-up to the Iraq War, Army officers with combat experience overwhelmingly supported GEN Shinseki and were much more reluctant about the rush to Baghdad than the civilians. On the left, academics write about the Army as though it is some exotic predatory animal that they have a vague distate for.

Maybe I am wrong and there will be lots of military officers and enlisted who respond to this article. I have a hunch, however, that there are few who read Alternet and even fewer who would respond. For what it's worth, I'd be more than happy to talk to any academics working on studies of the military. I feel very strongly about creating a stronger dialogue between academics and those in the forces.

Feel free to e-mail me at browcr23@gmail.com.

Chris Brown

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Misogyny in the Military Posted by: mary-alias
Too much testosterone.
Posted by: Last Chance on Sep 13, 2008 4:50 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As long as fathers teach their sons by the their example of male supremacy over their mothers, and as long as military organizations exist, violence against women will go on and on. I like Jodie Foster's solution: fight back!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Too much testosterone. Posted by: Cathyc
Kind of, but..
Posted by: liz_s on Sep 13, 2008 5:19 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is certainly a topic that should be discussed. But:

1. The statistics here are cherry-picked. Figuring out how many women are sexually harassed or assaulted isn't easy, but the author of this piece grabs the highest numbers from various studies.

2. The military isn't homogeneous. The 2006 Gender Relations Survey found that the services women were harassed and assaulted in the most were the same ones that men were harassed and assaulted in the most (largely by other men.) For instance, you're safer from this in the air force than in the marines - whether you're a man or a woman. This seems problematic for the thesis that the contributors to assault are a) hatred of women b) porn and c) childhood abuse - unless you think that marines have been that much more likely to be abused and consume porn than airmen, and I doubt it. The author's right about more women being generally correlated with a better atmosphere for women (although: the military academies are still brutal), but I think she could discuss leadership/atmosphere more. Rape doesn't happen in a vacuum: an atmosphere which is conducive to women being assaulted is an atmosphere which is conducive to men being assaulted, and probably more generally one in which leadership is failing in all sorts of ways.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What are we teaching!
Posted by: LionHeart on Sep 13, 2008 5:23 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The 1 in 6 number is actually a little low by most educated guesses. I've been teaching womens self defense courses for almost 20 years now and the acepted unreported number is more like 1 in 3 (this includes all forms of assault)! It is surely an epidemic.

As for the military I look at it more this way - if you wouldn't rape someone in civilian life you're probably not going to do it in the military. The reverse is the same. So what are screening standards and what are the reprecussions for assault?

It's hard to teach correct behavior to people you are training to kill. (I havent seen stats for military in other countries and would be interested if anyone had a link.)

While I've never seen assaults or know anyone who was accused, a good friend of mine, a now X-marine, was in combat - 1st Gulf war. SHE was sent to pick up some supplies from another unit. She was verbally harassed upon arriving and was warned if she came back they all would party! She knew they were serious.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Simple, "win" at all costs.
Posted by: maxpayne on Sep 13, 2008 5:26 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Reform is going to have to start at the homeland. The military is only the symptom.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

One thing
Posted by: walldodger1969 on Sep 13, 2008 6:30 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
wtf ,since when did looking at porn make a person rape?? Lost all respect for the article when that sentence was put down.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: One thing Posted by: maven
» RE: One thing Posted by: praedor
» RE: One thing Posted by: wwittman
maven
Posted by: maven on Sep 13, 2008 11:23 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Over 30 years ago, Susan Brownmiller wrote a powerful book "Against Our Will" chronicling rape throughout history, including a very appropriate for its time chapter on the Vietnam war. 30 years of feminism sure hasn't changed military attitudes much if there is still so much trouble in the military. How sad!!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Feminism Posted by: Cathyc
ABProsper
Posted by: abprosper on Sep 13, 2008 12:13 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Rape in war time has been extremely common throughout history. take a bunch of hormonal young men, teach them to be violent , take the far from home and family and you have a certain recipe for rape.

In the past soldiers camp followers (both prostitutes and wives alike) and access to local women (willing and unfortunately unwilling). This war has only porn and the occasional dalliance as an outlet.Yes porn is an outlet,in fact porn likely reduces rape
not increases it.

.Now there is much work to be done to reduce rape further

Increasing reporting of real events , as others have mentioned helping the military culture adapt but its not all dire. Historically given the circumstances this military is pretty well behaved.

personally if they asked me how to solve it I'd rather end these stupid wars and pull people away from the front lines but well thats just me...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Historically, yes Posted by: dcyalter
» RE: Historically, yes Posted by: dcyalter
well duh
Posted by: jstepp590 on Sep 13, 2008 12:48 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Duh. In case some of these educated types on here never heard of it, in men sex and violence go together like freckles and red hair. This isn't to say that horny men are violent or vice versa, just that they flow from the same part of our psyche and it does get hard for some guys to split them up.

NOW liberals know why military, ships at sea for long periods of time, football teams etc. and women do not go together. It has nothing to do with some kind of glass ceiling or womens rights. It has to do with their safety.

I know, it's not politically correct. I know, I'm a knuckle dragging patriarchal neanderthal. I know, I'm a jerk for saying it. So what, it is the truth.

It's the same for gays in the military. When you put young men in large numbers and in peak health trained to a hair it does not pay to be different. In fact it can be very dangerous. We even had stories about gay men having buffer cords rapped around their necks and thrown out three story windows. Young men are exceedingly violent and horney. When you mix that with few sexual opportunities and a limited number of women there will usually be trouble.

It sin't culture, it's biology. To ignore it or discount it is foolish.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

WE CAN'T REDESIGN THE MILITARY
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Sep 13, 2008 2:36 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Fighting is an ancient way of settling scores. There is no way to prevent rape when men & Women are in close proximity and emotins run very high. It doesn't take combat. It seems clear that the co-ed arrangement isn't working. Not that long ago the only females in combat were nurses. They are Officers with rank and therefore left alone. I don't like caving in either, but we have to do what works. The rapes go on and no one is punished. I don't see that changing. What would deter a man from doing what he pleases when he knows damn well that nothing will happen to him. Realistically it's not summer camp, it's about survival and making through the day or night. Manners & proper behavior are not part of the deal. We might consider other ways of serving, so that women can make a decent living in the military that doesn't involve combat. They shouldn't be deprived of opportunities afforded to men. With the current rape statistics to prove that the present arrangement just isn't working to back them it just might happen. I know they aren't there to be coddled but avoiding rape is hardly looking for the easy way out. It's possible to be patriotic without being in a threatening situation in addition to the one that exists because they're in combat. How do you concentrate on both? It's an awful lot to ask of a woman. And imposing behavior constraints on men doesn't work, it never did. Thanks, ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» is it intrinsic? Posted by: Tom Tele
WE CAN'T REDESIGN THE MILITARY
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Sep 13, 2008 2:36 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Fighting is an ancient way of settling scores. There is no way to prevent rape when men & Women are in close proximity and emotins run very high. It doesn't take combat. It seems clear that the co-ed arrangement isn't working. Not that long ago the only females in combat were nurses. They are Officers with rank and therefore left alone. I don't like caving in either, but we have to do what works. The rapes go on and no one is punished. I don't see that changing. What would deter a man from doing what he pleases when he knows damn well that nothing will happen to him. Realistically it's not summer camp, it's about survival and making through the day or night. Manners & proper behavior are not part of the deal. We might consider other ways of serving, so that women can make a decent living in the military that doesn't involve combat. They shouldn't be deprived of opportunities afforded to men. With the current rape statistics to prove that the present arrangement just isn't working to back them it just might happen. I know they aren't there to be coddled but avoiding rape is hardly looking for the easy way out. It's possible to be patriotic without being in a threatening situation in addition to the one that exists because they're in combat. How do you concentrate on both? It's an awful lot to ask of a woman. And imposing behavior constraints on men doesn't work, it never did. Thanks, ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Sorry but this is bullship
Posted by: Libsrule on Sep 13, 2008 4:38 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I stopped reading the second I saw the idioct, IDIOTIC comment that there is a significant relation between porn and rape.

IF this is where this report is going then the rest is pure bullshit.

Rape is abhorrent no matter where it takes place but to claim porn is the problem is crapola. To claim porn humiliates women is also pure bullshit.

Therefore the rest is not worth reading.

Rape is horrible, but there needs to be HONEST reporting on this and so far all I see is more dishonesty than honesty.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Sorry but this is bullship Posted by: politicky
A special response to LionHeart who said today that very few Vietnam vets were against McCain.
Posted by: VetAgainst McCain on Sep 13, 2008 6:33 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
FACTOIDS:

In 1992, 50 former POWs signed a letter asking McCain not to stop the Senate's Select Committee on MIA in Southeast Asia. He ignored the letter, got the hearing shut down and sealed DOD records of POWs and MIAs, including his own. McCain's betrayal of the signatory POWs and family members of missing servicemen earned him the "Manchurian Candidate" nickname. LionHeart can rest assured all of those outraged Americans are still against McCain 16 years later.

In 2004, veterans from both political parties formed the national organization, "Veterans for John Kerry." I know because I was a member and went to the meetings. Where I live, we had over 100 vets show up.

Interestingly, in 2008, there is NO similar pro-McCain organization.. There are pro-McCain websites, certainly, but no grassroots, boots on the ground outfit doing grunt work for McCain like we did for Kerry.

If you google "veterans McCain," you will get more hits for sources against the Arizona senator than for him.

On reason is McCain's puzzling opposition to pro-veteran legislation. For reasons I don't understand, he voted FOR veterans funding bills only 30% of the time (according to a scorecard of roll-call votes put out by the nonpartisan Disabled Americans for America).

Under the same system Obama has a far superior, 90% rating — even though he has spent a much shorter time in Washington.

Said Paul Sullivan, director of the nonpartisan Veterans for Common Sense, “Senator McCain clearly needs to be recognized for his military service and in some respects that will play to his advantage, but when it actually comes to delivering health care and benefits during war, he’s going to have some explaining to do.”

Ron Paul's campaign web site promoted VietnamVeteransAgainstJohnMcCain.con and added the following thumbnail summary: "John McCain -- Unfit to serve as Commander-In-Chief. The spoiled son of military privilege got a free ride throughout his military career despite repeated instances of sex scandals and screw-ups...."

VoteVets.org, the largest group of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans with 100,000 members, has consistently opposed the policies of John McCain.

Finally, while I'm on the subject, will someone from AlterNet please explain why the editors prohibit the mention of UnfitMcCain.com in reader comments?


Vet against McCain
To find out why, click on the links below:

American View
(now my favorite anti-GOP Web site
Vietnam Veterans Against McCain
(self-explanatory)
Vote Vets
(maintained by Iraq and Afghan war vets)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Hugh - no one cares but you! Posted by: LionHeart
A special response to LionHeart who said today that very few Vietnam vets were against McCain.
Posted by: VetAgainst McCain on Sep 13, 2008 6:37 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
FACTOIDS:

In 1992, 50 former POWs signed a letter asking McCain not to stop the Senate's Select Committee on MIA in Southeast Asia. He ignored the letter, got the hearing shut down and sealed DOD records of POWs and MIAs, including his own. McCain's betrayal of the signatory POWs and family members of missing servicemen earned him the "Manchurian Candidate" nickname. LionHeart can rest assured all of those outraged Americans are still against McCain 16 years later.

In 2004, veterans from both political parties formed the national organization, "Veterans for John Kerry." I know because I was a member and went to the meetings. Where I live, we had over 100 vets show up.

Interestingly, in 2008, there is NO similar pro-McCain organization.. There are pro-McCain websites, certainly, but no grassroots, boots on the ground outfit doing grunt work for McCain like we did for Kerry.

If you google "veterans McCain," you will get more hits for sources against the Arizona senator than for him.

One explanation is McCain's puzzling opposition to pro-veteran legislation. For reasons I don't understand, he voted FOR veterans funding bills only 30% of the time (according to a scorecard of roll-call votes put out by the nonpartisan Disabled Americans for America).

Under the same system Obama has a far superior, 90% rating — even though he has spent a much shorter time in Washington.

Said Paul Sullivan, director of the nonpartisan Veterans for Common Sense, “Senator McCain clearly needs to be recognized for his military service and in some respects that will play to his advantage, but when it actually comes to delivering health care and benefits during war, he’s going to have some explaining to do.”

Ron Paul's campaign web site promoted VietnamVeteransAgainstJohnMcCain.con and added the following thumbnail summary: "John McCain -- Unfit to serve as Commander-In-Chief. The spoiled son of military privilege got a free ride throughout his military career despite repeated instances of sex scandals and screw-ups...."

VoteVets.org, the largest group of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans with 100,000 members, has consistently opposed the policies of John McCain.

Finally, while I'm on the subject, will someone from AlterNet please explain why the editors prohibit the mention of UnfitMcCain.com in reader comments?


Vet against McCain
To find out why, click on the links below:

American View
(now my favorite anti-GOP Web site
Vietnam Veterans Against McCain
(self-explanatory)
Vote Vets
(maintained by Iraq and Afghan war vets)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

really?
Posted by: Philor on Sep 14, 2008 7:11 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Really?
So guys who spend most of their lives shooting deer on weekends!
Guys who fail to make it in community colleges!
Guys who are blank enough to be conditioned to kill for any causes, as long as their gov asked them!

You mean those guys can be violent toward women?
What I love about life in this wonderful country is that you can learn one new thing every day!
God Bless!

Now, please could somebody tell me why MIT students from the physic department rarely rape women or enjoy killing dogs for fun? Because today is a new day and I need to learn my daily new thing! Please!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: really? Posted by: wagadog
Iraqi women
Posted by: sarahk on Sep 14, 2008 7:49 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What happened to the Iraqi women that our soldiers and our military contractors arrested? What did they experience? Rape was common in Saddam Hussein's jails; is it now common in the US military jails run in Iraq and Afghanistan?

There is a children and women's section in the Abu Gharib jail. When the media was allowed in the jail after the prisoner abuse story broke, the women's section was off limits. The media did not challenge this. I think the media was cowardly and did not want to have to report on something that would reflect badly on the military.

With the culture of honor killing in the Middle East, rape can be a death sentence. A raped woman soils the family honor; her family will reclaim their honor by killing her. It is not just practiced by the Muslims, but Christians also in this region have committed honor killings. These women make the perfect silent victims. It adds another dimension of cruelty to rape in this region of the world.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Gender-specific combat units worked for Israel
Posted by: scheherezade on Sep 14, 2008 10:09 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Fighting is an ancient way of settling scores.

Also an ancient way of defending one's self & children.

Along with leadership, professional and combat skills, military service includes defensive training.

Women may potentially emerge from such training with more to offer their country -- in and away from combat.

The obvious solution is gender-separate training and combat units.

Including Special Ops MOS's.

The Israeli's have had significant success with this model -- including in combat.

However, the concept necessarily includes opening the highest service ranks to female officers on a merit-performance basis.

And there are plenty of mediocre male officers who aren't going to let that happen ever -- especially in the poor-quality-leadership-capital of the military, the Navy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A special response to personal attacks against me by LionHeart
Posted by: VetAgainst McCain on Sep 14, 2008 11:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
LionHeart said on another thread this weekend that I was a "fake" veteran.

How dare he!

I served my country honorably during the Vietnam War as a combat crewmember in the 320th SAC bomb wing stationed at Mather AFB, California.

One June 26, 1965, we flew "Arc Light One" -- the Strategic Air Command's first bombing mission of the war. Tragically, while flying through a typhoon at night, the historic operation turned into horror when two B52s from my wing collided and went down in flames, killing eight crewmembers.

Years later, I wrote about Arc Light One in a nonfiction book this way:

To our rear, the second B52 wave, consisting of three-ship cells on five refueling tracks, approached the Air Refueling Controll Points where their tankers should have been orbiting for the refueling rendezvous. To close the gap, the KCs were flying faster than normal and the bombers had slowed.

One cell of B52s used a different method to kill time -― the wrong one. Inexplicably, the three-ship cell made a 360-degree turn and flew through a formation on the adjacent track.

Two bombers from the 320th, one in each cell, collided and went down in flames. At least six crewmembers ejected and made it to the water, a surging maelstrom of churning waves. I knew some guys were alive because I could hear their emergency radio beacons in my headset.

I remember the noise as a high-pitched whine that tailed off at the end, then repeated itself. In my brain, it sounded like “Help me...help me...help me...”

I couldn’t help thinking what a terrible and sad way to die -— alone, soaked and seasick in a one-man dinghy thousands of miles from home.

If I’d been alone in the cockpit, I would have cried.


Imagine how you would feel after living through that experience, and then to be called a "fake" veteran by Lionheart.

I can't begin to express my outrage over such a scurrilous charge, one of many by LionHeart that AlerNet has tolerated despite its policy against personal attacks on other posters.

Vet against McCain
To find out why, click on the links below:

American View
(My favorite anti-GOP Web site
Vietnam Veterans Against McCain
(self-explanatory)
Vote Vets
(supported by 100,000 Iraq and Afghan war vets)

PS: I would love to link up UnfitMcCain.com -- one of the HOTTEST anti-McCain sites on the Web with over one million hits in August, its first month on line --- but AlterNet has apparently prohibited posters from making the connection. Tom Degan tried but AlterNet deleted the link.

Only ONE poster that I know of -- LionHeart -- has complained about UnfitMcCain.com. Without offering proof, he called it a "smear site with no basis or foundation." I can't help wondering if his unfounded allegation has influenced the AlterNet editorial staff.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Hugh Scott - who cares! Posted by: LionHeart
Pornography To Blame?
Posted by: Jarhead on Sep 15, 2008 9:11 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Interesting how the article blames rape in part on pornography.

"Soldiers still openly peruse pornography that humiliates women. (Pornography is officially banned in the military, but is easily available to soldiers through the mail and from civilian sources, and there is a significant correlation between pornography circulation and rape rates . . ."

I'm confused. I thought we liberals were supposed to be in favor of free speech.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]