Nearly one in five U.S. Army recruits was issued some type of waiver in order to serve, including many with felony convictions and arrest. All while law-abiding gays and lesbians are not permitted in the military. (Chicago Trib):
More than 11 percent of the Army recruits needed waivers for problems with the law — up from 7.9 percent the previous year and more than double the percentage in 2003, the year the U.S. invaded Iraq. Maj. Gen. Thomas Bostick, commander of the U.S. Army Recruiting Command, stressed that a vast majority, about 87 percent, of those allowed in with waivers had misdemeanors for such offenses as joy riding or violating curfew. Most faced little punishment beyond community service for their actions, Bostick said.No high school diploma? No problem.But at the same time, the number of enlistees with felony convictions and arrests in their pasts has increased. In 2003, the Army allowed 459 enlistees with felony arrests and convictions into the service compared to 1,620 this past year. The startling figures come at a time when the Army is trying to grow amid persistent questions about how the armed forces can increase force size during a time of war without significantly lowering the quality of recruits.
Additionally, the Army, which carries a vast majority of the weight in the fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, saw the percentage of new recruits with high school diplomas slip for the fourth straight year to below 80 percent, well below the Defense Department's goal of 90 percent.Steve Clemons of The Washington Note asks an interesting question. While the Pentagon has issued more than 125K moral waivers to boost its recruiting numbers and keeps those pesky homos out, we have a whole bunch of Blackwater guns for hire out there. What kind of standards does it have for its employees?More than 94 percent of Army enlistees in 2003 had earned a diploma, according to U.S. Army Recruiting Command statistics.
…Beth Asch, a senior economist and expert on military recruitment and retention at the Rand Corp., said that the decline in the number of enlistees with high school diplomas is more disconcerting than the increase in the number of character waivers granted by the Army.
“One reason you don't bring in non-grads is they tend not to complete things,” Asch said. “People who are better educated tend to be learners and the military needs life-long learners.”
I don’t know the answers but it would be interesting to know if Blackwater has issued any moral waivers to its recruits — or whether it has any moral benchmarks at all. Someone really ought to ask.After all, we’ve recently learned that Blackwater, already in a heap of trouble for its role in an incident on September 16 when 11 Iraqis were killed in a shoot-out involving Blackwater guards, has dismissed 122 people over the past three years for all sorts of problems — misusing weapons, alcohol/drug violations, violent behavior, etc. The North Carolina-based firm has been paid over $800 million dollars by the State Department to perform security work.Also, does Blackwater have a “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy? Or does it allow homosexuals into its private combat operations (as opposed to the gay folks at headquarters doing the planning and pushing paper)? Or does it discriminate against any homosexuals joining its ranks?
Would be interesting to know.
17 Responses to “Military standards: how low can we go?”
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
Wish I was in El Salvador:
From “Last Scream of the Missing Neighbours”, Jello Biafra & DOA. 1990.
Great post, but I have some nitpicky problems when comments like this are made:
No high school diploma? No problem. I mean, would we be making this comment if it were any other group than the military? I’m not saying the military doesn’t have its faults, and several are outlined in this post, but why are we looking down on these people who didn’t get a diploma when there are so many unnamed factors at work? Does the military have any GED programs to help with this? That would be interesting to find out.
And then Asch’s comments: “One reason you don’t bring in non-grads is they tend not to complete things,” Asch said. “People who are better educated tend to be learners and the military needs life-long learners.”
Is he just making gross generalizations about those who didn’t complete high school? Are there stats that back up what he’s saying here?
I don’t really have an issue with the diploma either, if the military has a program for helping people without diplomas further their education.
I got accepted into JAG reserves but then bounced at the medical stage. Bet if I re-applied I’d be accepted.
I agree that the military policy on queers (being queer, i prefer this term as opposed to “gay”) is obviously bigoted. It is an insult to queer people who want to be in the military to be denied, discharged, victimized etc when it seems the military will take ANYONE these days.
But,
I feel the same way about queers serving in the military as I do about women serving. Perhaps we should use our outsider status to critique this institution instead of putting our energies into being a part of it. Afterall, is fighting for the right to fight in the best interest of progressive politics?
I don’t think so.
Let’s face it. Running a risk of getting your legs blown off in Baghdad is just not going to appeal to many people besides true believers in our mission in Iraq (whatever that may be this week), and how many of those are left?
Although I’ve noticed one interesting thing about armed forces recruiting commercials on TV: Increasingly, they’re aimed at the parents. Meaning, no doubt, that parents’ desire to avoid exposing their children to danger (otherwise known as “common sense”) is perceived as the biggest obstacle to recruitment.
Does Blackwater have standards? Go read the report over at TPM about how they withdrew from the mercenaries’ association because they were worried that even their fellow “security contractors” wouldn’t approve of their behavior.
Hmmm … waivers you say? I wonder if the “I’d serve in the military, but I can’t because I’m [X]” crowd amongst the chicken-hawks is aware of this concept of waivers … somehow, I don’t think so …
As an enlisted e-4 infantryman in the Illinois Guard, a professional employee, a student at Northwestern, and a liberal….I’m a bit insulted by the post. I went through basic at Ft. Benning with a solid number of “cat-4’s”…guys who needed some form of waiver to get in, mostly because of low asvab scores or lack of high school diploma. (Note that a high percentage of these guys go into the infantry because the army limits their access to other job codes or mos’s).
The archetype for the cat-4 was an 18yr old kid from a low-income broken family who joined because he was desperate for some foothold to gain towards middle-class comfort. The dirtbags don’t make it through basic training…drill sergeants see to that. The guys who graduate are dedicated and professional at what they’ve learned.
My point? These are generally the kids that this country has failed. We haven’t given them a damn thing but poverty and a non-support structured family. And they joined the infantry to put their lives on the line out of a sense of patriotism. So how about you cut them some slack and let the fact that they’re dying for you in the desert make up for the fact that they might not do well on standardized tests or that they maybe had to get a GED.
“And they joined the infantry to put their lives on the line out of a sense of patriotism.”
And that’s different from gays, lesbians, and bisexuals who want to serve . . . exactly how?
“So how about you cut them some slack. . .”
Right back atcha, pal.
Matt: You had me up until “…they’re dying for you in the desert…”
They’re not dying for ME, or for anyone else who opposed this debacle from the get-go. They’re dying because a fool named George W. Bush and a lot of other fools around him can’t admit they made a mistake.
I certainly don’t look down on people for serving in the military per se, and I daresay most of the people who post here feel the same way. At the same time, the military is experiencing personnel problems as a direct result of this utterly pointless, asinine war. There’s a grim sort of justice in that situation.
You know, I understand the rhetorical effect of “look at how low they’re willing to lower the standards while keeping perfectly capable and willing queers out of the military” but I can’t go along with it. It’s not that I object to equal treatement under the law for queers, but that as an opponent of this war, I don’t want to make it easier for the machinery of warfare to continue working.
We shouldn’t be fighting to get into an unjust war.
“I have only comparatively recently emerged from the United States army so that I am now of course in the radio-active reserve and, the usual jokes about the army aside, one of the many fine things one has to admit is the way that the army has carried the American democratic ideal to its logical conclusion in the sense that not only do they prohibit discrimination on the grounds of race, creed, and color, but also on the grounds of ability.
[…]
When Pete was only in the seventh grade he killed a cop
He’s real RA material, and he was glad to swap
His flicknife and his old zip gun
For a bayonet and a new M1
It makes a fella proud to be a soldier!
[…]
Now Ed flunked out of second grade, and never finished school
He doesn’t know a shelter half from an entrenching tool
But he’s going to be a big success
He heads his class at OCS
It makes a fella proud to be a soldier”
(Preamble and lyrics from “It Makes a Fellow Proud To Be A Soldier” by Tom Lehrer - recorded in 1959)
Not much has changed in 48 years, has it?
Seems like “the soldiers are dying for you/your freedoms” is an exact parallel to “Jesus died for your sins”. I have a problem with both, in that I didn’t believe I was in danger from Iraq or from a vengeful God. But those who are seriously insecure might be swayed.
I’d tend to agree with Matt, along the lines that it comes off as more insulting to the category 4, as he says, soldiers when it’s aiming for the lackbrains who keep ‘Don’t Ask Don’t Tell’ going.
I’m also not at all sure these regulations were a good idea in the first place. Having a peacetime (especially) military as a place you can go and work yourself back into societies’ good graces if you’ve fucked things up good in high school/the legal system seems to me like a good idea. It’s certainly getting harder and harder for people who have a felony conviction to make it here in the “real world.”
The fact that they’re willing to take people who need waivers in wartime but not peacetime seems to me a lot more insulting than anything Pam posted here.
While the military’s policy is obviously homophobic and should be opposed, at this juncture in history with a lot of frightening war-mongering towards Iran happening the liberal/left should be organizing against military enlistment. Starve the war machine!!!
Among blacks recruitment levels are down 58% since 2001– a positive sign. Couldn’t find a link but here’s an excerpt from the Boston Globe:
BOSTON GLOBE - African-Americans, whose longstanding relationship
with the US military helped them prove their abilities and offered a
way to get ahead, have turned away from the armed forces in record
numbers since 2000, a period covering the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist
attacks and the start of the Iraq war. Defense Department statistics
show the number of young black enlistees has fallen by more than 58
percent since fiscal year 2000. The Army in particular has been hit
hard: In fiscal year 2000, according to the Pentagon statistics, more
than 42,000 black men and women applied to enlist; in fiscal year
2005, the most recent for which a racial breakdown is available, just
over 17,000 signed up.
I’m not really following the notion that it’s OK to shit on the “cat-4s” Matt talks about because the military has an idiotic policy towards GLBTs.
And you think none of those kids who sign up because the military will pay for your doctors are gay?
This message is mainly for Pam, but anyone may resond to this. I’m a convicted felon (Class B Felony - Assault) and currently waiting to interview with a recruiting battalion commander to get a waiver. Since my release I’ve earned myself a Bachelor of Arts in Psychology and enrolled in a MA degree toward Mental Health/Education. Since my release, I have over 8 years of “professional” work experience - I don’t work a rinky dink job. If I get into the military I will also undergoing a huge paycut. My intentions in joining are personal, but I will inform you of this … it’s specifically to remove stereotypes and test my own pre-defined discipline. Please explain to me why someone like myself would be detrimental to the armed forces. If anything, I have more credentials such as education and real-life (including urban street experience) that will make me an ideal candidate to fight in such a vague war as “the war on terror”. To deny an “American” the right to serve their country is wrong. To indicate that people like myself do not have the ability to rise above or to be the same cut as “normal” citizen implicitly will make anyone doubt your moral ethics as a true “American”. You’re like the politicians picking political parties to align yourself to and not really serving the interest of the “American” people.
Some people have it good and think they got there all on their own merits …