Military Rape

The latest news from the world of the military has to do with the problem of rape in the services. A lawsuit against the government and some officials has been instituted by 15 women and two men, current or former service-members who claim they were raped but that nothing significant was done about their complaints.

One of the complainants, Panayiota Bertzikis, is executive director of the Military Rape Crisis Center, which has a post-office address in Cambridge, Massachusetts. She claimed that while on a social hike (off duty) with a Coast Guard shipmate in 2006 her colleague raped her but when she reported it to her commanding officer the authorities did not take substantial steps to investigate the matter, instead, forcing her to live on the same floor with the accused rapist and that she had to tolerate being called “liar” and “whore” by others.

The rape might have occurred but it seems obvious enough that whatever happened was a “he said–she said” matter, and it’s a lead-pipe cinch there were no witnesses. Apparently she did not report the matter to the civil authorities (Burlington, Vt.), though rape is a crime in Vermont, not just in the Coast Guard if at all if off-duty and off-base. Her case is too insubstantial for validity, though it’s also a lead-pipe cinch that rapes do happen and that many if not most are not handled properly.

Most if not all the rapes – real, imagined, or simply accusatory – would not happen if the military had not been turned over to the social engineers years ago. For instance, the army tried gender-integrated boot camps in 1977 (Carter administration) but gave that up in 1982 (Reagan). The reason: The men, who would actually do the fighting in the future, were far too soft to be successful since the formerly stringent training-requirements had to be accommodated to what the women could stand. One can only wonder at the rape opportunities but the social engineers were too dumb to think of that…or didn’t care.

The Clinton administration (another democrat) brought the concept back in the 1990s, notwithstanding that the commanders were stuck again with the same problem, though the Marines had none of it. This is from the Heritage Foundation of 06 November 1997: “President Clinton's assistant secretary of the Navy, Barbara Pope, has averred that ‘We are in the process of weeding out the white male as the norm. We're about changing the culture.’” By his own admission, Clinton “loathed” the military, had no understanding of anything related to it and obviously didn’t care one way or another, rape notwithstanding.

Poor Pope was merely a nincompoop, just like the other social engineers. The system has been changed again so that combat troops in the army train in gender-segregated boot camps. Only two of the five army boot camps have coed elements, allowing for specialized training in such things as finance, personnel and maintenance.

Only the brain-power of an orangutan is required to see the problem of rape, as well as un-readiness, in the military. Mixing mostly older adolescents and early-20s in living/working arrangements essentially devoid of privacy is literally begging for trouble, whether concerning rape or anything else, not to mention with the actual preparedness needed to break things and kill people, the job of the soldier.

Though it’s politically incorrect to suggest it, there should be no mixture of the genders in the military. There should be no women on naval ships unless the entire crew is comprised of women…thus little chance for rape. The navy is preparing now to put women on submarines, a shocking development made more so by the fact that privacy on a sub is impossible. People practically live on top of each other, rape notwithstanding.

There should be no women in combat account the privacy problem but far more importantly because, as proven in the boot-camp experiments, they are and will not be battle-ready, except for the rare case occasionally. Soldiers will be more concerned with protecting their female colleagues than even themselves, not to mention concentrating on killing the enemy.

According to the Virginian Pilot of 16 October 2007, “Navy officials encourage women to plan pregnancies to coincide with shore duty. If women become pregnant during sea duty, they are transferred at 20 weeks' gestation, and weight and physical fitness requirements temporarily are eased. In addition, women receive 40 days of maternity leave after delivering an infant.” They’re also awarded a year of shore duty after giving birth, according to the article, making their total out-of-pocket time about 21 months.

According to Military Times of 17 October 2009, “Some shore commands in the Norfolk, Va., area report that up to 34 percent of their billets are filled by pregnant sailors, and commanders are complaining about a ‘lack of proper manning to conduct their mission,’ according to a Naval Inspector General Report.” This has nothing directly to do with rape but simply indicates the problem connected to feminizing the military…social engineering gone amok.

The services are damned by a Congress so hopelessly blockheaded that rape is almost the natural result of its sheer incompetence/insensitivity in allowing defense chiefs or presidents to make the military into a mixture of whorehouse and gigolo-world. God help us all.

And so it goes.
Jim Clark