Island Dweller revisits us but brings a new topic, a well-groomed cocker spaniel, and a rare eight-pack of Zima. Does he know how to visit the Castle, or what?

O Most Supreme Ruler:

I have received a missive from Esteemed Associate, still firmly esconsced in the belly of the beast, only now doing it for less money than he originally was making – and not from any desire of his own! Without further ado, I provide the original, and a follow-up:

“First a disclaimer: ANY unwanted sexual contact (USC) inflicted on ANY other human being is WRONG! This is without regard to the gender of either party involved or any other categorization which we apply to people.

That said, the most recent report has been used by a lot of politicians to reduce the military’s ability to impose justice under the UCMJ and place it elsewhere.

Isn’t it peculiar that this last happened after the last war (Gulf War I, Tailhook) and that it was also driven by senators? Does this mean that war turns our military into rapists? Or is something else going on here? Are there senators who fear a popular military?

Maybe it takes a Marine Captain (who also happens to be female and a lawyer) to put this in perspective.

And now the follow-up:

“I’d like to add a couple things to the previous missive.

Capt. Rodman points out in her article in the WSJ:

Nevertheless, to achieve the 26,000 military-wide estimate in 2012 (and 19,000 in 2010) over half of the victims must have been male. Of course, male victims do exist, but empirically males do not constitute anywhere near the majority of victims of unwanted sexual contact—no less sexual assault.

I’ve seen articles written by authors on the right (who also took these numbers at face value) to make an argument that a sudden prevalence of homosexual rape was the military’s new, deep, dark secret. It seems to me that this leaves those who want to make political hay out of the “study” results in a bit of a pickle. If they are going to stand by the results, they are compelled to re-examine the repeal of DADT, something that is very politically inconvenient for them. Alternatively, they have to face the very high probability that the results are flawed and that it is their own political ambitions that are driving the train.”

A couple of observations.

1. An unwanted sexual advance is an extremely subject thing – there is no objective standard applied in a “one size fits all” manner for an outside authority to determine if a sexual advance did take place. Behavior directed toward a servicemember that they may find totally unremarkable – or even funny – may be mortally offensive to another.
2. All I know is what I have seen with my own eyes, and what my father – a WWII combat veteran – told me. War is a very simple, direct and ruthless business, and it requires a simple, direct and ruthless man – we are talking about the combat arms here – to wage it quickly and successfully. That in turn requires a certain mind-set trained to intelligently direct the appropriate violence at an enemy, and which has to be carefully cultivated, and a certain relational callousness is the inevitable consequence. Some of this is bound to rub off onto dealings with the opposite sex. That accounts for some of the reported incidents of sexual assault. Spousal abuse and rape are two of the offenses being reported with increasing frequency by wives of returning servicemen who have seen extensive combat in an extremely high-pressure environment. Some men who have been asked to do brutal things may behave in a brutal fashion afterward. This has happened after every war. Part of it affects sexual contact.

The repeal of DADT and newfound freedom for homosexuals within the military may lead to the more brazen among them making certain advances toward “straight” service members. Let me emphasize I am not saying every homosexual service members behaves in this manner – but just as there are heterosexual service members who victimize women, there logically have to be homosexual service members – whatever the percentage – that victimize straight service members. What is that straight service member going to do – potentially be branded a homophobe for alleging an attempted sexual assault that will be impossible to prove? The “braver” among them, who report these incidents, will also lead to an increase in reported sexual assaults or attempted sexual assaults.

This says nothing of the assaults that now will be taking place between or among homosexual service members, and have now to be treated as bona fide sexual assaults by the military criminal investigative organizations. This will also bump up the numbers.

BTW don’t forget the recent poll by a certain website wherein females age 18-26 (I think) were asked their opinion of a certain New York celebrity currently running for mayor who has been sending photos of The Boys across the ether to impress – or amuse – females. I believe 85% of the females in this poll felt the celebrity had done nothing wrong in offending fellow members of their sex. This is overwhelmingly the age group of females that enlists in the military, and then howls bloody murder when someone does this to them in person. Go figure.

Boy, am I glad I’m retired!

ID

The Czar is on record that gays in the military are there, and should conduct themselves with the same requirements as any other member of the Armed Forces of the United States of America. Most of the arguments for or against gays in the military treat them as a special class, which is of course highly dangerous to the individuals in that class as well as out of that class. Island Dweller and Esteemed Associate appear, in part, to agree.

The Czar of Muscovy

Божію Поспѣшествующею Милостію Мы, Дима Грозный Императоръ и Самодержецъ Всероссiйскiй, цѣсарь Московскiй. The Czar was born in the steppes of Russia in 1267, and was cheated out of total control of all Russia upon the death of Boris Mikhailovich, who replaced Alexander Yaroslav Nevsky in 1263. However, in 1283, our Czar was passed over due to a clerical error and the rule of all Russia went to his second cousin Daniil (Даниил Александрович), whom Czar still resents. As a half-hearted apology, the Czar was awarded control over Muscovy, inconveniently located 5,000 miles away just outside Chicago. He now spends his time seething about this and writing about other stuff that bothers him.