Article

2005-12-24 Home Front: WoT

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Steve White 2005-12-24 00:00|| || Front Page|| [1 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Steve,

I sympathize with the comment but I think you're dreaming. It's not going to come to a halt because the government has created a situation where gasoline and sparks are in constant close proximity. The combustible atmosphere WILL get above LEL (often due to the introduction of booze) and there WILL be explosions. It's going to happen. All that can be done is to try to minimize the number of them by punishing the offenders harshly.

Posted by mac 2005-12-24 07:24|| 2005-12-24 07:24|| Front Page Top

#2 There's another approach too. You could also stop this sort of shit. Not the article, but the puerile need to immediately turn a story about women warriors into phallic bombs straddled by big boobs.

That shit has consequences - it tells others it's just fine and dandy to treat women soldiers first and foremost as porn objects, even if the story is about women fighting and in some cases dieing in combat.

You want to jack off over pictures of women with guns, fine. Do it in private, do it with pics of civilian shooters - but if you turn a story about women in combat into a jerkoff opportunity, don't even try to tell me you support our female troops.

SPIT

Posted by angry at USMA 2005-12-24 08:44|| 2005-12-24 08:44|| Front Page Top

#3 This has to come to a halt.

I suspect we'll be getting to that right after we wrap up the war on drugs and end drunk driving deaths.

It would be interesting to compare the percentages for the academies to similar surveys for the Ivy Leagues. Somehow, I expect the academies would come out looking pretty good. But it's not as much fun to beat up on the Ivies; they're on the MSM isde and the academies are the enemy.

By choosing to eliminate single sex schools, we have exacerbated this problem. It may well have been worth it in toto, but there are consequences, forseen and unforseen, that we live with.

Posted by Speaper Spavitch3788 2005-12-24 11:36|| 2005-12-24 11:36|| Front Page Top

#4 Sexual harrassment is a term that covers a lot of ground from true situations to dillusional fantasies. Just as harsh words is now considered torture. They need to be a bit more specific before I can work up any kind of froth over this.

Were the 6 percent asked out for a cup of coffee by trolls and found the offer unwanted and thus potentially sexual harrassment? Or where they fondled on their way to class? Big difference, the first should see the female tossed out because they don't have what it takes to serve and the second should see the male tossed out because they are brainless.

Posted by rjschwarz">rjschwarz 2005-12-24 12:12|| rjschwarz.com]">[rjschwarz.com] 2005-12-24 12:12|| Front Page Top

#5 rjs, the definition of harassment was NOT trivialized, there have been suspensions / expulsions / courts martial and in one case a prison sentence over this and it's being take pretty seriously by very senior leaders in DOD.

6% of the women cadets at West Point = roughly 30 women who had been assaulted. That's at a single snapshot in time, i.e. it represents 1 class with 3 1/2 yrs there, 1 class with 2 1/2 yrs etc. The total number of sexual assaults since women were admitted is presumably much higher.

This is not and is not being treated as a political issue, first and foremost. It is a military discipline issue and in some cases, a Uniform Code of Military Justice issue.

So don't bother working up a froth if it's too much trouble. Those of us who know the women who were assaulted and for whom this is a lot more than just a chance to show our non-political-correctness chops will take care of the real issues which bear directly on our professional military force.

Posted by angry at USMA 2005-12-24 12:21|| 2005-12-24 12:21|| Front Page Top

#6 "SPIT"

Sigh.

Re: the article -- Wanna wager on whether or not the percentages bandied about in this article aren't in line with those everywhere else? Aw fuck it, you're not interested in honesty, just your sensitive button being pushed.

Okay. Well, as one of the resident shit magnets, I'm gonna get killed for this, but hey - somebody's gotta say it. So come on, all you pieces of shit who can't handle it, lol, come to Poppa.

Fact: Everyone is wired for sex. Yep. Even you, SPIT. Go figure, eh?

You can pretend that you are more "civilized" and everyone who doesn't share your particular mindset is broken, but the fact is - it's very possible that you're the one who's broken. A male's automatic response to two softly rounded shapes in the right position on a femalian is absolutely automatic. Don't like it? Go talk to your God. He/She/It created the wiring.

It's what people do about the urges and fantasies and attractions that matters. You don't have any of those? If not, then you are definitely broken - Nature trumped by the PC Squad. If you do, well then, join the Human Race. Actions. That's what matters, both in law and in reality, though it's an inconvenience has been wildly skewed by the PCism rampant in the West. In other words, what floats your boat today will sink it tomorrow...

1) Some laugh it off, as we did in that thread.

2) Some follow up their autonomic urges with actions, such as harassing, molesting, raping, and all of the other twisted responses to the natural urge. Then, in the most egregious ironic twist, thanks to the PC Squad, they get a pass - pseudo-rehabilitated and turned loose to prey again. Where did the brainpower and self-discipline they lack go? That's easy: they come from a fuckwit self-destructive socio-engineered PC-blindered disaster which has decreed that there is no guilt, except for disagreeing with them, of course, and no failure, except for not taking their agenda far enough.

3) And some get their panties in a bunch and spew in a blame game, painting with the broadest brush they can find. Brilliant response. Congratulations, you're *PC* Approved... sorta, for now.

If the PCism was removed from our society, you'd see the molesters treated appropriately - castration (whether chemical or physical) or death. In other words, they would be permanently prevented from re-offending. We would also not have self-righteous "SPIT" posts.

The fact is, in my not even remotely humble opinion, our society has become far too lenient and created a multi-edged sword of tolerance/intolerance. That which should not be tolerated is not only tolerated, it is celebrated and allowed to live to prey again. And there's the tolerated intolerance of a class of people who are convinced their shit doesn't stink, such as you, so they're free to paint all with the brush of their personal demons. But never fear, the PC Social Engineers have an answer for everything... Witness the current move to de-certify anything as actually offensive. A social engineer's wet dream. Offended? Well then, instead of punishing offenders and removing their ability to re-offend, just eliminate the social rules and stigma - from the offender, of course. VoilÃ ! No offense should be taken because nothing is offensive! Got a problem with that? Here, take 2 of these 4 times a day and take an anger management or sensitivity course. Big point on the old resume and, well, absurd in every way. You know, you should be careful, SPIT, you're behind the curve a bit, there. Can't be too thin, too rich, too gay, too tolerant, or too picky these days. It's all the rage, y'know. Yeah, well, fuck 'em. It's time to throw off this disaster, instead of placing bet after bet on an obviously losing hand. The same exquisitely crafted decadence that we deride in the EU support of the Paleos, endless diplo-dances, etc., both cloaks you in a mantle of self-righteousness and also demands that you tolerate everything except honesty and justice. I'm being honest. I demand justice for actual offenses, acts, not manufactured outrage. My bad.

Bullshit - to your spew and to the PC nitwits who mandate that we should not kill that which should be killed. You may be an otherwise solid rational person, but this pushed one of your personal buttons and you spewed bile at those who have their behavior under control and take the laughter / banter approach to laugh it off. If even that is unacceptable - too fucking bad - this is America... at least for the moment. That will pass, of course, if we maintain this track. I am one of those for whom you have such misplaced bile to dispense and, gosh, I don't appreciate it. I am somewhat sorry for whatever experience created your button, but -> I <- didn't do it, so fuck off. Work out your personal problems in public and you get a personal answer in reply - in public.

I once worked on a contract for a woman who had a hand-lettered sign centered on the wall above her chair:
"Sexual Harassment is not encouraged, but neither is it forbidden. Grades will be issued - and posted."

She was smart as hell, a great Team Leader, a great programmer, drop-dead gorgeous, and did not suffer fools. Neither do I. My 3 month contract was renewed 11 times. I'd happily wade through 10 million PC twits with a broadsword to save her from the slightest inconvenience, too. I wouldn't give you the time of day.

Have A Nice Day and Merry Christmas.

Posted by .com 2005-12-24 12:40|| 2005-12-24 12:40|| Front Page Top

#7 I'm ever so glad that you are normal, .com.

I do note that you don't ever seem to have assumed responsibility for military leadership, so it's not entirely clear to me that you understand the real issues here.

But, I gather you DO understand the ... opportunities ... afforded by sexual instincts and responses.

It's a free country, do as you like - which seems to include being able to handle women ONLY in sexual terms and to suggest they are inadequate and not normal if they disagree with you.

It's certainly true that I'm at a disadvantage discussing this with you, since I spend most of my time around men who mangage to be mature, sexually active and attractive AND disciplined.

But hey - you say instinct is all, and if that condom fits (i.e. if it's not too big) go ahead and wear it.

And I will continue to call things as I see them in practice, on the ground, with regard to our female soldiers.

Posted by angry at USMA 2005-12-24 12:50|| 2005-12-24 12:50|| Front Page Top

#8 angry at USMA, Thanks for postings. Your point of view is appropriate, important and appreciated. Please let loose on other topics as well.

Posted by Speaper Spavitch3788 2005-12-24 12:53|| 2005-12-24 12:53|| Front Page Top

#9 ROFL.

Sure thing, aaUSMA (RKB, lotp???).

You're the moral compass and authority and none of my points is as valid as your outrage and attempted sarcasm.

Carry on.

Posted by .com 2005-12-24 12:58|| 2005-12-24 12:58|| Front Page Top

#10 I plan to.

Posted by angry at USMA 2005-12-24 13:10|| 2005-12-24 13:10|| Front Page Top

#11 equally outraged at beefcake calendars and pics?

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2005-12-24 13:12|| 2005-12-24 13:12|| Front Page Top

#12 .com's attempt at diversion notwithstanding, I've never expressed outrage at soft porn in general.

What I *am* saying is that quick diversion of discussion about women in combat on Thursday into girlie pics trivializes the service and in some cases sacrifice of women soldiers.

And, I am saying that attitude feeds into the assaults and harassment that women soldiers are facing in various places, including (as illustrated by the stats above) at our military academies.

.com and perhaps others would like to deflect that by suggesting I am sexually inadequate or denying my sexual nature. It's an old, tired attack that misses the point.

No, I don't have a problem with beefcake. I believe the research suggests that men respond to visual sex images more often and more strongly than women, on average, but hey - if beefcake's your thing, go for it.

The issue here is invoking cheesecake and soft porn specifically -- and immediately, as in the Thursday thread -- when the issue of women in combat is discussed. THAT's the source of outrage -- not only because it trivializes female soldiers, but also because that attitude has very real consequences over time.

Posted by angry at USMA 2005-12-24 13:20|| 2005-12-24 13:20|| Front Page Top

#13 I think I know .com pretty well after a couple years' contributions, and he meant humor and snarkiness rather than disparaging female contributions or adequacy IMHO. Part of Rantburg is knowing the commenters, their quirks (I personally am a cynical, semi-humorous jerk) and historys. Not to deny the validity of your outrage...just 'splaining

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2005-12-24 13:31|| 2005-12-24 13:31|| Front Page Top

#14 Much of the problem is based in the concept of the military academy. It is obvious that academies are anachronistic in many ways. Most evident in that they recruit from "the best and the brightest", with intent to produce "the best and the brightest."

Then why are academy graduates often despised when they enter active duty? It is not envy. They already have two strikes against them. Both enlisted and other officers hold them in general disdain, until proven otherwise.

Many see them as either offensively "hard-assed" and egotistical, especially to subordinates; or as disheveled and disordered individuals.

A military historian I know has described the academies as "initiative-destroying" institutions, with tunnel vision when teaching military history and philosophy. He went to West Point after having reviewed an ROTC military science program at a major state university. He reported that the West Point cadets received a typical education that could have been obtained at a better small university, and yet their military training was inferior to ROTC.

He said that the difference was that between being taught militarism and militantcy. The academy cadets spent far too much time on useless endeavors such as drill and ceremonies and other uniform skills. ROTC cadets almost never wore dress uniforms and spent the vast majority of their time learning or practicing combat skills. Uniform skills were pro forma, and had little respect from the ROTC cadets.

At the time he was at West point, the singular emphasis in historical tactics was the US Civil War. At the ROTC course, the students had been taught about Vietnam, Korea, the Burma Campaign, the Battle of the Bulge, and Austerlitz, and were given several Cold War scenarios for which they were to write essays projecting possible outcomes.

Much of what the ROTC cadets created had to conform to the US Ranger School Operations/Patrol Order format. As much as 2/3rds of their semester weekends were spent in Field Training Exercises, and they even provided OPFOR services for the area National Guard and Reserve units, involving airborne operations, counterinsurgency tactics, the use of CS and smoke, and POW and interrogation training. Their primary trainer was a Special Forces Master Sergeant. Officers usually taught classroom.

So are the academies a bad thing? Only so far as they ruin potentially good officers. It would be better that they be reorganized and kept modern to reflect the current needs of the military.

Posted by Anonymoose 2005-12-24 13:43|| 2005-12-24 13:43|| Front Page Top

#15 I didn't try to deflect anything.

I pointed out some facts - honest and relevant facts - that both responded directly to your misplaced bile and anger, as well as the topic of this story. Remember, this story is the point, the topic at hand.

That my observations do not add to your desired groundswell of outrage do not make them off-topic or even off-point - in fact, I am on-topic - and you are not.

Factually speaking, making this thread a personal piss & splatter festival for your personal issues by addressing a previous RB story and comments on that thread which pushed your personal bandstand button are trollage.

My post mostly addressed the underlying issues for such actions - regardless of the venue, i.e. Military Academy or elsewhere. I made the mistake of addressing your piss-fest directly. My bad.

This is not your personal thread. Get over it.

Posted by .com 2005-12-24 13:44|| 2005-12-24 13:44|| Front Page Top

#16 Damn. Preview wasn't working, again, so I missed the fact that I failed to close an italics tag. Apologies.

Posted by .com 2005-12-24 13:46|| 2005-12-24 13:46|| Front Page Top

#17 addressing a previous RB story and comments on that thread ... are trollage.

Agreed.

Posted by phil_b">phil_b 2005-12-24 14:04|| http://autonomousoperation.blogspot.com/]">[http://autonomousoperation.blogspot.com/] 2005-12-24 14:04|| Front Page Top

#18 Frank, .com has a couple chips on his shoulder. And he gets very personal with his attacks as soon as one of those massive chips gets jostled a little - often only in his imagination.

Wanna wager on whether or not the percentages bandied about in this article aren't in line with those everywhere else? Aw fuck it, you're not interested in honesty, just your sensitive button being pushed.

As it happens, I do know how the stats at the military academies stack up with standard undergraduate schools. Exactly which one of us isn't interested in facts or honesty? I'm working off of firsthand knowledge. .Com is working off of massive assumptions and a lot of direct personal attacks on me.

Factually speaking, making this thread a personal piss & splatter festival for your personal issues by addressing a previous RB story and comments on that thread which pushed your personal bandstand button are trollage.

Deflecting discussion that ties together articles at RB on a military topic by labeling them a "piss & splatter festival for (my) personal issues" ... now THAT qualifies as trolling.

Oh, and .com - I never said you committed the offenses mentioned in this article. I did say - and continue to say - that IMNSHO the girlie pics and the sexual innuendo in the Thursday thread (in which you participated, including a link to a NSFW soft porn pic) trivializes women soldiers and soldiers, especially when posted in direct response to a discussion of women in combat.

And THAT in turn - not just here but when repeated a lot of places by a lot of people in various ways - sets the conditions which foster the assaults and harassment that women soldiers and cadets are facing.

There's PC bullshit out there to be sure - RJS's comment about being asked for cofee a case in point.

But then there's actual responsibility for the indirect consequences of our actions. And just because someone somewhere got all PC on some issue doesn't mean there aren't times when the criticism is valid.

Posted by angry at USMA 2005-12-24 14:07|| 2005-12-24 14:07|| Front Page Top

#19 One of my teenagers is college bound next fall and submitted applications to five colleges, three of which any of you would surely recognize. I had a crime concern about one of them because it was in an urban area, so I Googled crime statistics for the campus and found that there was a crime problem, including sexual assault and rape. So then I Googled crime statistics for one of the rural campuses and -- surprise, surprise -- the crime rates were pretty much the same in all categories. And then I did another, and another...

It's not just a military school issue: it's a societal issue. And it doesn't end on graduation day in the civilian world either.

Posted by Darrell 2005-12-24 14:10|| 2005-12-24 14:10|| Front Page Top

#20 Darrel, I think it goes to my point that until they seperate the crimes from the regrets you get misleading stats. Currently on College compuses they lump date rapes together with real rapes. Date rapes can be real crimes, and they area also next morning regrets.

People stand with the early morning regretters because the crime is so vile and person if real and they prefer not to imagine a world where someone would make such a false claim. That doesn't take away the fact that many false claims are made, lives ruined, and we still look at the same stats and say my god its dangerous out there.

Posted by rjschwarz">rjschwarz 2005-12-24 14:15|| rjschwarz.com]">[rjschwarz.com] 2005-12-24 14:15|| Front Page Top

#21 I don't buy it, rjs -- not that many women are willing to pursue legal charges on morning-after regret.

This is not a bunch of mere regret.

Posted by Darrell 2005-12-24 14:23|| 2005-12-24 14:23|| Front Page Top

#22 aaUSMA - You imply the percentages are not in line with other institutions. Hmmmm. No proof offered.

Y'know, even if you do begin to offer links to back up your base-line assertions, I've come to see you as someone who wouldn't hesitate to cherry-pick to suit. You have your ego on the line here, obviously. The chips on my shoulders are no different from yours (and you obviously have them), where they actually exist, lol. And that's the funniest bit - you don't know where to attack - this, or any disapproval of me, lol, isn't one of them. To mix metaphors, I work on my chips regularly, turning sacred cows into BBQ at every opportunity. Mesquite chips, lol. I recommend the diet to you. You need it.

You are trolling by hijacking this thread and you are myopically presenting your hot-button opinions as fact, though couched in some nice grammar.

Do my posts constitute denigration of females in uniform? I dunno, I don't think so, having served and never having had any problems of any kind whatsoever with my femalian peers. Gosh, being honest sounds so much less authoritative and official and impressive. *frown* Mebbe I should adopt your pretentious tone of self-assured puffery.

Wait! I know! Why don't you ask the woman in the pic that started the snarking? She's in uniform, mostly. Apparently she has no difficulty with being a soldier and a female at the same time. Why, I'd wager she thinks that the game you're playing is rather more a rhetorical exercise in your fevered mind, from beginning to end, than a valid outrage. But I'm sure you'd say she's already adopted her victimized situation and doesn't know any better. Poor thing - broken and in need of your fixes and doesn't even know that she's a tool of people like me and in need of being saved by your likes. Damn! But hey my bad, I'm adding to the thread hi-jacking you initiated.

Your moral superiority is phoney and faux, but finger-wagging is very fashionable - and you're a natural.

My curiosity itch is approaching infinity... If you aren't RKB / lotp, then color me surprised. Would any other of the RB Mods like to state, factually and publicly, that this isn't? Color me very curious. A third nym would be trollage, methinks. Everything, and I mean everything, fits to a "T".

Posted by .com 2005-12-24 14:47|| 2005-12-24 14:47|| Front Page Top

#23 Ima gonna piss a lot of people off. You want to get rid of harrassment of women in the military academies? Unfortunately, the solutions are all harsh and politically unacceptable:

* Put them in separate barracks.
* No men in the women's barracks or vice versa. If they want to study together, they do it in supervised study rooms.
* Don't admit women unless they pass the Army Physical Readiness Test under the _male_ standards. Whether you were a male or a female, the number one way for you to get harrassed while I was a cadidiot was to fall out of a run, fall out of a road march, or fail an APFT. In fact, 90% of the harrassment that I witnessed while I was there was directed at females who were physically weak.
* All social contact is chaperoned.

Now I'm not an absolute fool and I know that my recommendations have snow ball's chance in hell of being adopted, but there you have it from a bona fide survivor of the South Hudson Institute of Technology. What I find interesting from reading this thread is how we've come to take post-modernism for granted, as if somehow changing the narrative can overcome 18-year-old hormones, 3-4 billion years of evolution, and 20,000 years of warrior ethos and the associated memes.

In general, the harrassment that I witnessed there (and yes I did occasssionally see women harrassing men... cadets are very aggressive people) disgusted me. It was a small but important contributor to my decision to join the infantry -- I just didn't want to deal with it anymore. Women are never going away in the military. A lot of them do a good job. But if you want to stop the harrassment, either you must change human nature* or segregate them. Nothing else will work.

* I suppose that someday there'll be a psychotropic drug that will turn every 18-year old into a virtual 50-year-old so that harrassment goes away. We'll diagnose horny teens as pre-sex offenders, put then on Argaiv (Viagra spelled backwards) and we'll all live happily ever after.

Posted by 11A5S 2005-12-24 14:48|| 2005-12-24 14:48|| Front Page Top

#24 I'm not pissed, 11A5S, lol. The truth is a joy to behold, though we are not always sufficiently appreciative, lol. What we do about it is what remains - and where we separate the wymyns from the grrlz and the myns from the boyz.

Posted by .com 2005-12-24 15:08|| 2005-12-24 15:08|| Front Page Top

#25 "someday there'll be a psychotropic drug that will turn every 18-year old into a virtual 50-year-old"
As the father of three teenagers, puuleeeeease put me on the waiting list for three doses!

Posted by Darrell 2005-12-24 15:13|| 2005-12-24 15:13|| Front Page Top

#26 'moose, the question of the role/value of the academies is a different topic. One perhaps worth pursuing at another time ... who is the historian?

FWIW the commandant at USMA has significantly increased live fire military exercises for all the cadets.

11A5S, I understand where you're coming from. I doubt you'll get much disagreement from the majority at RB.

We'll see what the military looks like 20 years from now and whether the physical standards play the same role. Clearly they always will for infantry type roles, at least until we have bionics or gene-engineering .... 75+ lb packs over rough terrain is a recipe for broken pelvises in many women.

Whether you were a male or a female, the number one way for you to get harrassed while I was a cadidiot was to fall out of a run, fall out of a road march, or fail an APFT. In fact, 90% of the harrassment that I witnessed while I was there was directed at females who were physically weak

Don't know when you were there. But a recent female grad who told me about a multiple-try assault attempt on her is a black belt in judo and was a very fine shot long before she got to the Hudson Valley. She never reported it officially because her cadet company commander was in her opinion a total jerk. (I knew him and I see her point.) FWIW etc etc.

Posted by angry at USMA 2005-12-24 15:21|| 2005-12-24 15:21|| Front Page Top

#27 Darrell perhaps your statistics are more honest than the ones I've seen. Often the numbers include those made to administrations that do not go into the legal system. The fact that the claim is made ensures the perp is kicked out of school.

The fact that criminal charges are not brought up shows to me that the crime is not as serious as it should be. I understand how tough it must be for a rape victim to come forward and deal with the trials, and I suspect that is the rational for not prosecuting the perps, but the system usually used on universities also makes false accusations incredibly easy to make.

Posted by rjschwarz">rjschwarz 2005-12-24 15:27|| rjschwarz.com]">[rjschwarz.com] 2005-12-24 15:27|| Front Page Top

#28 angry at USMA: I agree my point was too vague, that the military academies are anachronistic in many ways, not just in their military training.

That is, they are 19th Century artifacts. The West Point uniform dates to the war of 1812, I believe.

The institution is founded on the principals of the alma mater (lit. "nourishing mother", but practically, "foster mother").

In those days, students were forbidden to be married. Chaperones were ubiquitous. As late as the 1940s at other universities, students were also forbidden to have cars or live off-campus among many other restrictions.

So, in effect, the military academies try to take modern high school students and put them in a chaste environment full of rigid regimentation.

High school students with a high expectation of personal freedom and sexual expression. Hard enough with only a single sex.

But when females were introduced, it was done with the attitude that the system could work just as well with both sexes as it could one. Combine the monastery and the convent, yet demand that both behave as if nothing is different.

So what it boils down to is to spend increasing amounts of money to deny that there is a problem and force chastity among the unwilling; or to accept that social change has made it acceptable for unmarried males and females to have sexual relationships.

It is not the mission of the military to enforce morality that does not affect the order and discipline of its personnel. And this even transcends the concept of morality, to much of what is "trained" at the academies. If it is not of benefit to the military, it is frivolous militarism.

Posted by Anonymoose 2005-12-24 16:14|| 2005-12-24 16:14|| Front Page Top

#29 But a recent female grad who told me about a multiple-try assault attempt on her is a black belt in judo and was a very fine shot long before she got to the Hudson Valley. She never reported it officially because her cadet company commander was in her opinion a total jerk.

Then why didn't she report it to her TAC or TAC NCO? Just curious, not an ambush attempt.

Weird shit happens in those barracks at night, a@USMA. I had a drunk male upperclassman stumble into my bed one night. To this day I'm not sure if he was just incredibly blitzed or looking to play Brokeback Mountain. I wasn't sticking around to find out. I also had a woman cadet, who we all assumed was gay, come on to me one night. It was a clumsy attempt, and even with many years of intervening experience, I'm still not 100% sure since I beat feet out of that situation, too. Maybe her hanging out with the lesbians was just a defense mechanism, lack of self esteem, etc.

And yes, besides harrassment, there was all kinds of consensual straight and lesbian sex going on in the barracks. Young adults are young adults. They will find a way to have sex. And these are highly screened, highly indoctrinated young people. I shudder to think what goes on in your typical second-tier state school co-ed dorm. They need to be segregated.

Posted by 11A5S 2005-12-24 16:34|| 2005-12-24 16:34|| Front Page Top

#30 Then why didn't she report it to her TAC or TAC NCO? Just curious, not an ambush attempt.

I can only speculate on that. But, note that 60% of the assaults were not reported. The current Supe has put in place new DPOMs that make reporting easier, through more channels, and offer a way to get confidential medical help, counselling etc. if they don't want to report officially and trigger an investigation.

I was pretty dismayed only to hear about those 2 attempts after this woman graduated and was commissioned. I had been her sponsor for 3 years and we were pretty close, she asked me to pin her rank on after her oath .... probably the only reason she told me even afterwards.

She'll be fine, volunteered for and was one of the small % of non-combat arms grads to make it into an early rotation of BOLC II at Benning, which she loved and did well at from what I hear. Branched MP and will be kickass. Got good feedback/acceptance from her soldiers and NCO during CTLT. Dad was a sniper in Nam, her attitude about troops is what it ought to be.

For graduation I got her a range bag, really good hearing protection and some other goodies for her privately-owned sidearm. Her unit was due to rotate back to Iraq in a few weeks, but I haven't found out yet if they are still going. Either way, she was a little rusty compared to how well she shot before coming to USMA and I wanted to encourage her to put in some additional range time.

Now if her unit could get permission to carry .45s instead of the Berettas ....

Posted by wondering too at USMA 2005-12-24 17:26|| 2005-12-24 17:26|| Front Page Top

#31 If the posts above are anywhere close to accurate, it cerainly shows that leadership at Westpoint needs a full clean-out. One set of standards, no exceptions. And zero tolerance for anyone that violates them.

To be totally honest, Pointers are far more likely to be jerks than the ROTC 2nd Lts I have had to "break in" during my enlisted days. Pointers were far less likely to listen, more evasive about admitting when they didn't know something, and out & out jackasses when confronted.

Don't get me wrong - once broken of the "snob" factors, they do turn out to be fine officers.

But I'd rather have a Citadel or VMI grad any day over a Pointer. Those places turn out leaders not just officers.

Posted by Oldspook 2005-12-24 19:56|| 2005-12-24 19:56|| Front Page Top

23:03 TIME
22:59 .com
22:58 Frank G
22:57 .com
22:57 Frank G
22:56 Frank G
22:46 Captain America
22:45 TIME
22:42 .com
22:38 Redneck Jim
22:37 SR-71
22:35 TIME
22:27 .com
22:23 KBK
22:13 TIME
22:04 SR-71
21:51 SR-71
21:34 Redneck Jim
21:31 Hupomoling Uneresing3032
21:24 Angolurt Elmavirong2063
21:13 Zhang Fei
21:10 Frank G
21:08 TIME
21:06 LOOK