Donald Trump’s latest attempt to deflect criticism about a 2013 tweet in which he blamed the prevalence of sexual assault in the military on the presence of women has been to criticize the military court system for letting offenders go unprosecuted.
But a big reason the military court system is so ineffective at punishing sexual assault offenders is precisely because senior members of the chain of command are involved — and too many share Trump’s view that rape and sexual assault are inevitable given the circumstances.
This is the tweet in question:
26,000 unreported sexual assults in the military-only 238 convictions. What did these geniuses expect when they put men & women together?
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 7, 2013
“Many in the military would be nodding their heads in agreement in that statement. I would not say the majority, but too many would be,” said Col. Don Christensen, former Air Force chief prosecutor and president of Protect Our Defenders — an organization dedicated to ending rape and sexual assault in the military — in an interview with The Intercept.
Trump defended his views on sexual assault in the military on NBC’s Commander-in-Chief forum on Wednesday.
“Well, it is — it is — it is a correct tweet,” he said.
NBC’s Matt Lauer asked: “So this should have been expected? And does that mean the only way to fix it is to take women out of the military?”
Trump responded: “Well, it’s happening, right? And, by the way, since then, it’s gotten worse. No, not to take them out, but something has to be happen. Right now, part of the problem is nobody gets prosecuted. … You have the report of rape and nobody gets prosecuted. There are no consequence.
“When you have somebody that does something so evil, so bad as that, there has to be consequence for that person. You have to go after that person. Right now, nobody’s doing anything. Look at the small number of results. I mean, that’s part of the problem.”
On CNN that night, former Army Lt. Gen. Mark Hertling echoed Trump’s view that rape in such cases is inevitable. “It is a problem, and there are ways that the military is fixing that problem,” he said, “but certainly when you put young people together, these kinds of things happen to a small percentage.”
Actually, in the current system victims often won’t report their assaults. “The low reporting and conviction rates of sexual violence are complicated. This is partially due to the revictimization of the reporting and judicial process,” wrote activist Melanie Carlson in The Hill.
Survivors of sexual assault in the military have been met with retaliation, a 2015 Human Rights Watch report found.
“I knew when I reported my career would be over. Based on past experience, I knew what would happen,” said Lisa Cox, a Navy petty officer, according to the report.
Time magazine reported that Army Lt. Emily Vorland was discharged for “unacceptable conduct” after an Army investigation into claims that a higher-ranking male sexually harassed her.
When an individual in the military seeks legal action, the case is brought to a court system where everyone is operating in a chain of command — something that Sen. Kristen Gillibrand, D-N.Y., has sought repeatedly to change through legislation.
Christensen said that sexual assault cases in military court are lengthy and arduous. “I have prosecuted and defended almost every case you can imagine — sexual assault is the most difficult you can do,” he said.
“No one should have to suffer the chain of command when they report these crimes,” Gillibrand said last year. “Retaliation happens so often that a majority of these assaults go unreported. Every military victim of sexual assault deserves due process, professional treatment by a trained military official at each opportunity to seek and receive justice.”
In 2014, Hillary Clinton announced her support for Gillibrand’s bill in an interview on CNN. “And remember, it’s not only women, it’s men who’ve been assaulted as well,” she said.
Top photo: Soldiers, officers, and civilians attend a ceremony for the U.S. Army’s annual observance of Sexual Assault Awareness and Prevention Month at the Pentagon in 2015.
I don’t get it. We have a military that we expect not to break ranks and fall on the civilians looking for loot, like any decent army of past times would have done. We have a military that pretty much does not rape the civilian women in the areas it controls. We have a military that is expected to follow rigorous rules of engagement and laws of war and while we know they foul up on this point and have some questionable philosophies about collateral damage, we do really have to hunt to find the cases where they’re doing the wrong thing. (Note that for a lot of the worst outrages the Bush administration had to bring in civilian contractors and interrogators) So why the hell should I think that we can’t expect male soldiers not to rape female soldiers? It isn’t what they’d do out of the military, it’s not the kind of honor we expect from the military, and it’s hard to understand how the problem ever got this bad at all, but I refuse to believe that nobody can fix it.
Gee whiz Naomi, had Donald Trump chosen to focus on the truly controversial themes that any scientific study of sexual assault in the US Armed Forces would reveal, then their racial demographics would have been at the top of the list. After all, we all know that Juan Thompson was right when he characterized Trump as a neo-fascist blackshirt in a series of Intercept articles…
The social progressives at National Public Radio (NPR) have also been vocal in their concern for sexual assault of women in the armed forces. To this end, they have chosen to cite an AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INDUSTRIAL MEDICINE article by Dr Anne G. Sadler entitled, “Factors Associated With Women’s Risk of Rape in the Military Environment”, wherein reported sexual assaults are statistically assessed. The study found that the perpetrators of sexual assault fell primarily into two racial categories, white and black. More interesting still, the study concluded that the ratio of black to white perpetrators was 1:1 even though a combined count of military men reveals that black men only constitute 18.6% of the male population of the US armed services. By comparison, white men constitute 68.7% of the male population of the US armed services.
Secondly, a 2013 Washington Times article cited a pentagon report that reveled the results of a an anonymous, voluntary survey it conducted on sexual assault.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/20/victims-of-sex-assaults-in-military-are-mostly-sil/
The aforementioned Sadler study also revealed that, in an “Off-duty on-base environment:
1. two-thirds of all observed homosexual activities in sleeping quarters were rape related.
2. two-thirds of all observed heterosexual activities in sleeping quarters were rape related
But hey, what are the bare facts compared to the salacious nature of a Trumped accusation of male chauvinism against a Republican presidential candidate.
Women should certainly have all the rights of men, and as the father of a daughter I am all in. What women lose in choosing military combat service is the status of being protected by perhaps the old fashion thinking men of society. Those men are willing to go to war to protect the women and children of their land.
My uncle was a wonderful man loved by so many people. He served during WWII in Germany immediately after the war ended when things were not always safe for women there. He seemed to bring home with him a great sense of protection for women that I always respected. He had a wonderful marriage and had no cause for jealousy, and was as far from a chauvinistic person as there was in his day. He however was not comfortable with his wife or the other female members of our family being out at night alone, and he would take needed precautions to ensure their safety even if it was at his inconvenience.
I am not criticizing any brave woman that wants to serve in combat I am just noting a change in our society that would saddened many good men that have passed.
What would be best is that our society was not run by war and fear mongering monsters that evilly and greedily perpetuate unnecessary wars to enhance their power and access to resources and profit.
Men are sexually assaulted too!
There is no justification for sexual assault, so the mention of frontal lobes, pheromones and so on sounds ridiculous.
Civilians are raped by servicemembers as well. Militarism is pervasive and people are possibly –mistakenly– thanking pedophiles, rapist, etc. for their service.
Army Lt. Gen. Mark Hertling echoed … “It is a problem… “but certainly when you put young people together, these kinds of things happen to a small percentage.”
As we were bringing freedom, democracy and American Values to Iraq BBC News reported April 17, 2009, “According to several studies of the US military…30% of military women are raped while serving (14% of them gang raped), 71% are sexually assaulted, and 90% are sexually harassed.”
According to data reported by BPW/USA … military women were 15 times more likely to be raped by their fellows than die in the war.
Dear Gen. Mark Hertling is this what you consider a small percentage?
Okay wait a minute. Let’s excerpt this section of Trump’s statement reported in this article:
“Right now, part of the problem is nobody gets prosecuted… You have the report of rape and nobody gets prosecuted. There are no consequence.
When you have somebody that does something so evil, so bad as that, there has to be consequence for that person. You have to go after that person. Right now, nobody’s doing anything. Look at the small number of results. I mean, that’s part of the problem.”
I’d like to know if anybody finds these statements objectionable?
Given that we are selectively picking quotes, why couldn’t the headline then be:
“Trump Thinks Army Does Not Prosecute Rape Often Enough”
Please explain!
The problem there is that the comment you quoted is a complete 180° from the original tweet. When he tweets “what do you expect”, he’s putting forward the idea that men/women simply cannot control themselves around the opposite/same sex. It’s pretty clear he thinks they should be separated in a military work environment. When he’s called out on that by Lauer (one of the very few times Lauer did something right in that panel), he suddenly changes to “they’re not prosecuting enough people” which is the whole point that the people he was being edgy towards in 2013 was trying to get through.
If you won’t accept the current headline, feel free to change it to “Donald Trump once again backpedals on something when called out on it.”
This was a good article all in all.
I didn’t quote a tweet – which I see, by the way, is from 2013. I quoted from what he said the other day, which is a longer statement.
I agree that it’s a “backpedal” and I am somewhat aware that this is an election year. And Trump has never held office so he can essentially say whatever he wants, and does, and the only “record” he has is his statements, and he can’t even keep those “straight”.
But this is a backpedal in the right direction, right? Are we merely rooting for Trump to stay horrible on all things for partisan reasons, or would it be better for our national discourse if his positions grew up a little — and if we noted it when they did?
What if the media ran with the part I quoted and pressured the military with it? You know, “even Donald Trump says you don’t take rape seriously enough” would be kind of an attention-getting question, right?
Disagree. There is no “complete 180″ as you put it. All he did was emphasize the importance of effective law enforcement in regard to the sexual assault problem. And he’s right. Second, the problem is not separation vs. integration but trying to mass integrate EVERY aspect of military service. Its Mass Integration without any consideration for gender demographics and mission of various units that’s to blame for this sexual assault problem. (For example: putting 3 females on a submarine with 120 males). The fact of the matter is that some units are better suited for integration than others. And that maintaining a certain degree of separation isn’t necessarily a bad thing.
I am no fan of Donald Trump. However, this type of conjecture is clearly faulty. There is no way to know that which Trump was inferring. Most of the sexual misconduct in all of the branches of the US Armed Forces occurs in an “Off-duty on-base environment” (e.g. sleeping environment). Military work environments are probably the least likely venue for sexual assault as the risk of exposure is extremely elevated.
All of these problems were widely predicted by critics at the time the decision was made by civilians to assure “equality” of women by integrating them in large numbers into the services, with an (often denied) aim to eventually integrate them into the combat arms.
The critics of this decision were shushed as sexists and misogynists and were confidently informed by the social engineering squad that any “problems” would be only transitory and quickly squashed, with no lasting degradation of the war-fighting capability of the military. The same shushing continues from proponents to this day, with the very same promises offered — as they will be in perpetuity.
One can only wonder why these same people do not just as vehemently insist that women should not engage in sports unless in the same leagues as men. Just put all players on the same field together, regardless of gender. No “womens’ tennis”. No “womens’ soccer”. No “womens’ basketball”. Just “tennis”, “soccer”, and “basketball”. Boys and girls together. Happy, happy, happy because they are “equal”.
How do you suppose that would work out?
How about the NFL? Or rugby? Or any other contact sport requiring extreme physical stamina to compete against others? How many women would turn out for tryouts? Probably not many. Because they aren’t crazy stupid.
And why would those few who did turn out not often make the cut?
Because no team is going to commit suicide by showing up with even one member whose abilities are physically sub-par. Each team has only so many players to field. It isn’t a social experiment. And no coach will play someone just to make a nice point about social liberalism and equal rights. Because all that counts is the scoreboard.
Likewise, all that counts in the military is the scoreboard.
Now, that said, there are some very damn tough-minded and supremely capable women who have distinguished themselves in the military. They deserve every honor they’ve earned by performance and we should be grateful they are willing to serve. I’ve met a couple of these women and I’d happily serve with either of them anytime, anywhere.
But not in a foxhole. Beside me in a foxhole, I want Bubba, who is 7 feet tall, weighs 260 lbs., runs the mile in 60 seconds flat, drinks cold pig blood for breakfast, and believes his only true mission in life is to instantly kill anyone approaching with a lethal weapon who is not one of our folks. I don’t care if he is white, black, or purple. I just want him to be excellently skilled and deeply committed to kill people and break things when ordered. Which is the sole, critical mission of the military — and has no other.
But there are often well-seasoned rules a successful society puts in place based on experience rather than theory. Many such rules may appear to be nonsense, but may invoke a deeper logic not obvious unless carefully examined.
I mentioned having met some pretty damn impressive women in the military, both back during the Stone Age when I served and more recently. One was by chance encounter at an airport with a tight-laced, sober minded AF Chief Master First Sargent with 16 years of service, a former TI serving then as a general’s aide. And also fairly attractive even with virtually no makeup. But a pure professional right down to the marrow.
As she departed to meet her officer coming down the gangway, I noticed he was wearing a wedding ring — which set me wondering how the general’s wife regarded that relationship.
Given the givens of “modern” military life, I suspect that question is silently asked far more frequently by far more military family members than leaks out in public. Questioning official catechisms diligently whipped by political officers is always a non-career-enhancing act.
a women flying an A-10 could support you while you are in that fox hole better than bubba.
Great Comment.
1973-1979 at menwith hill for trump i know what the other side is,
Male sexual aggression is at its peak at a time when the frontal lobes of the brain iare still not completely developed – this is a key component of the problem with rape in the military because the frontal lobes are involved in motor function, problem solving,spontaneity, memory, language, initiation, judgment, impulse control, and social and sexual behavior. Fully evolved frontal lobes are deemed essential to correctly weighing the moral consequences resulting from an intended course of action. As visual stimuli play a major role in human sexuality, the very sight of a young fertile woman can reflexively amp up testosterone production to a degree in which impulse control is severely challenged in many immature males. All of this is pure biology. All branches of the armed services intentionally exploit male sexual and territorial aggression in the attempt to make killers out of impulse challenged teenage boys.
It is in regard to the foregoing that the politically progressive impulse to integrate females into the armed services must be weighed. On the one hand, male enlistees are being encouraged to give full vent to their primal aggression in a manner that biochemically undermines impulse control, and on the other they are being expected to reign in those impulses at a time when their testosterone level is being kept sky high. So, yes, the very presence of a woman under such circumstances will predictably result in a percentage of males acting on those urges without regard to moral consequence.
Fellow Citizen Rely TI
Good points Karl: “frontal lobes are involved in motor function, problem solving, spontaneity, memory, language, initiation, judgment, impulse control, and social and sexual behavior.”
Yes, those frontal lobes are last to develop in the human brain and that is why the military wants to get their hands on our youth before they develop. They can then give them a gun with bullets and the young people are apt to think “cool I have this gun and since I am invincible I can blow those guys away”.
If after the frontal lobes develop they give the more mentally developed a gun with bullets they are more apt to think “cool, but the enemy across the way also has one of these or maybe even a bazooka…maybe not so cool”.
BALOONEY!!! This comment is full of malarkey, but here are a few thoughts:
“On the one hand, male enlistees are being encouraged to give full vent to their primal aggression in a manner that biochemically undermines impulse control…” Obviously you have never been in the military. The very idea of “discipline” and “following orders” counters everything you just said.
2) Are you seriously making the assumption that sexual assault is primarily the realm of “teenage boys”? SMH!
3) You say “All of this is pure biology.” I disagree, what about culture and environment? In regards to the topic these are factors that are just as important as biology.
4) You say “the very presence of a woman under such circumstances…” The presence of women has nothing to do with anything. What does matter is gender demographics, the environment, and the presence/non-presence of social (sexual) outlets. To assume that “woman + young males = rape” is just plain stupid.
5) You said “acting on those urges without regard to moral consequence.” OMG…this has to be the joke of the century! LMFAO! Moral consequence has nothing to do with anything. This crime is just like the epidemic of cops shooting black men. Stuff is more likely to occur when you know you can get away with it.
Clearly, you have never been to reality. The whole premise of this discussion is that, in spite of the emphasis on military discipline, sexual assault in all of the armed service is a persistent problem. Secondly, I posted a study above in this thread that included a discussion of “Off-duty on-base environment.” I suggest that you read it before you lecture me on military discipline.
I never said or inferred this. I specifically used the term “immature males” in reference to those whose frontal lobes are not fully developed. The frontal lobe reaches full maturity around age 25. The DoD does annual reports on sexual assault. In those reports it provides the ages of “subjects in completed investigations.” For example, the Yr 2012 report reveals that forty-one percent of those “subjects” fell into an age range of 16-24 – with 35% falling into a range of 20-24 yrs of age. Again, this is 35% of ALL the cases that have been successfully completed. Roughly 39% of all US military personal were 25 years of age or younger. As the problem of sexual assault in the military is not predominately heterosexual in nature, and has been a problem long before women were allowed to enlist in their current capacity, it is impossible to determine if more mature “subjects” didn’t engage in such behaviors as young recruits. This having been said, a comparison of the various branches of the US Armed Forces reveals a direct correlation between age and incidents of heterosexual rape. A Rand study determined that “The Marine Corps is the youngest of the services, with 64 percent of Marines under the age of 25, according to the most recent demographic data.” The Marine Corp has the highest reported rates of heterosexual sexual assault of all of the services. It is twenty percent higher than the Navy which is second.
You are blurring distinctions here. My thesis is that the “presence of a woman under such circumstances (Biological immaturity that translates as a lack of requisite impulse control) will predictably result in a percentage of males acting on those urges without regard to moral consequence.” Age demographics bare this out. This thesis does not attempt to negate the fact that the majority of reported cases place the age of the perpetrator higher than 25 years of age. However, most of the available data fails to address the fact that older offenders could have long histories of sexual assault that began at a young age. The few studies that have considered prior history of sexual assault of both perpetrators and victims reveal that a significant percentage of both have prior histories that pre-date their enlistments.
You cannot have heterosexual assault with out both sexes being represented. Sexual attraction is the core impetus for sexual aggression. Sexual attraction is a function of sense perception and brain chemistry. The potential for sound moral judgement and impulse control can only be fully realized when the frontal lobes are fully developed.
It appears that you are claiming that only the threat of official reprisal prevents sexual assault in the military. If this is the case, then you are proving my point for me. If the only concern here is to prevent the sexual assault of women by men, then it would seem that segregation is the only viable alternative. However, if you are also concerned with the larger issue of male on male sexual assault, then it appears that your metric warrants around-the-clock monitoring of all military personal – especially officers.
The line about an “epidemic of cops shooting black men” is pure rhetorical nonsense and has no place in this discussion.
Back in February 2008 when I was being checked into my eighth federal detention facility since my early January 2008 rendition (they moved me every time I started to figure out how to use my one hour a day out of isolation lockup to communicate with the outside world) a nice social worker or psychiatrist or something was checking me out when she broke down and told me how the male prison guards were raping the female prisoners in her facility. I helped her the best I could but I have no formal training and I had my own problems at the time. Maybe someone with credentials could look into helping her out if she is still there?
Trump is correct when he says “What did these geniuses expect when they put men and women together?” (in a situation where they should not be together.)
And what does “genius” Hellary Clinton want to do to improve that predicament? DRAFT WOMEN BY FORCE – not only exacerbates chance of sexual assault, but gets women killed or maimed in combat as well. Pure genius.
Too many people today confuse the equality of men and women with sameness of men and women. Pure stupidity.
I believe females are smarter than males, generally. I believe females can be nastier than males, meaner than males and be vicious like no male could. I believe females should be able to do what ever they want to do except being an active participant in combat unless it’s in defense of their home. There is evidence suggesting that pheromones from females affect males in ways that significantly reduce the likely hood of success of the mission. There is also psychological issues or moral problems of fellow combatants of the killed or injured female combatants. That being said, with so much discussion on RAPE in the military, why would any female join the military? If people are trained to kill without hesitation why would they stop themselves from raping?
“That being said, with so much discussion on RAPE in the military, why would any female join the military?”
You’ve asked a very cogent question. It would be interesting to hear an equally cogent response from the worldly-wise author of this article.
Why women eschew the traits that make them nurturers and baby makers is one for the shrinks.
Working full time,and being part of the rat race seem totally against so called feminism,but such is the world of false flags.
In the old days,dad made enough for the whole family to live on,in a single job,5 days a week,now both men and women work,some two jobs,to cover living expenses,while children are left out,as family members sometimes work 7 days a week.
A complete horrorshow of neolibcon destabilization of the nuclear family,and America suffers,but we can blame it on OBL.
Women aren’t eschewing these traits (at least not in significant numbers), but rather its the economics that are driving large numbers of them into the military. Which is the result of having an All-Volunteer military service in a capitalistic society. People are going to follow the money, and today’s military is the new extension of the welfare system.
Trump is 100% correct.
Reality bites sometimes.