The sex scandal gripping the Army is as riveting as it is revolting. A male drill instructor at Aberdeen Proving Grounds in Mary-land has been convicted of multiple counts of rape and other serious sexual misconduct over an 18-month period against more than one dozen female trainees under his command.
Another dozen senior male officers from Aberdeen face charges of sexual misconduct with female trainees. The Army is investigating 500 other complaints.Every parent of every current or future recruit deserves an answer to this simple question. How could this have happened to even one of America's young men and women who volunteer to put their lives on the line to defend us by serving in the military?
The military has only one mission: preserving our national security by being ready at any time to fight and win wars. The military should not be a laboratory for social engineering.
It might be politically correct to have male drill instructors train female recruits. But the bottom line is - what is the result? Does mixed-gender basic training help our women in the military? Does mixed-gendertraining produce an effective military? These are obvious questions that must be answered. We must not cringe from asking these questions for fear of what the answers might be. If the answer to these questions is no, then we must have the courage to do what's in the best interests of our young women, our military, and our nation by ending mixed-gender training for recruits.
The Marines maintain single-gender basic training. Male recruits become Marines under male drill instructors. Female drill instructors mold young women into Marines. That was not the case at Aberdeen. Does the Army's "gender neutral" training for all of their women recruits create the environment that made the crimes at Aberdeen possible and others more likely?
These are not new questions. In 1977, the Army initiated mixed-genderbasic training but discontinued it in 1982. Why? Male recruits were not physically challenged enough to reach their full potential while female recruits suffered from inordinately high rates of injury.
In its Nov. 15, 1992, report, The Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces recommended that "entry level training may be gender-specific as necessary" in recognition of the existence of special conditions and different standards for men and women. Common sense, the failure of the earlier experiment, and the expert advice have been ignored. How many times will we force the military to discover the truth that men and women have different physical capabilities?
Some argue that drill instructors are the problem. The United States has the most effective military fighting force in the world and the role of drill instructors is a key reason. Drill instructors are entrusted to control every single aspect of a recruit's life. Use of this authority makes soldiers out of young recruits with varied backgrounds and produces a lethally effective fighting unit in just a few weeks. The drill instructor system isn't broke and doesn't need fixing.
Battlefields and enemies show no mercy. Dead and maimed soldiers, grieving families, and threats to our liberty and freedoms is the price our nation will pay for a politically correct military that is not an effective fighting force. This cost is too high.
Under Article I, Section 8, it is the constitutional duty of Congress to make regulations to produce an effective military force. It's not the job of the Department of Defense. The buck stops with Congress. Congress has a duty to ask these questions and follow through with any necessary corrective actions.