How sexual assault in the military drains taxpayers
All told, the cost hit $3.6 billion in 2012 alone. As cases and victims' frustration mount, the Pentagon and Congress are slow to act.
According to a study by international researchers at RAND, the repercussions of military sexual assaults cost the U.S. $3.6 billion last year.
That calculation includes medical and mental health services for victims and other "intangible costs." The unpaid work days military sexual assault victims are likely to take off after their ordeal add up to $104.5 million a year alone.
The Pentagon recently said military sexual assaults are up 35% just since 2010. That earned the military a "no tolerance" admonishment from President Barack Obama, but efforts to stop those assaults have been mired in bureaucracy.
The House of Representatives passed a provision that would grant victims protection after coming forward, but it has limped along. The Senate proposed moving sexual assault cases out of the military chain of command and putting military prosecutors in charge instead. That's because the current process often results in retaliation from other military personnel and discourages witnesses or those who know the perpetrator from coming forward.
The original proposal by Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., that has 27 co-sponsors, including four Republicans, was swapped out for an amendment by Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin, D-Mich., that would keep sexual assault cases inside the chain of command and require a senior military officer to review decisions by commanders who refuse to prosecute rape cases.
Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., said taking the cases outside of the chain of command would "dismantle" the military justice system that "has long been a centerpiece of discipline in our military."
In defeat, Gillibrand summed up nearly 20 years' worth of frustration among military sexual assault victims and their advocates: "The chain of command has told us for decades that they will solve this problem, and they have failed," she said. "We have heard the words 'zero tolerance' for over two decades, starting with Secretary Dick Cheney in 1992."
Meanwhile, the continued foot dragging comes at a cost. The Pentagon notes that 26,000 military personnel were sexually assaulted last year alone.
The ground fighting capability of the military has been seriously diminished because of the political decisions to allow men and women to mix in combat units/zones. For the same reasons of "sexual distraction" special operations are resisting the admission of females into their units. The infantry, armor, artillery and engineers should do the same. Doing anything less is an attempt to change the natural nature of a man, aggressive sexually or otherwise. We can't program them to be aggressive one day and not the next.
The army could take the guys who think that is fun and put them in the same separate army together and call it the dirty doggens or something. I don't think the females are really into it. There is however, supposedly a style of sex that is known as "rough sex." I don't know how that came to be, but some claim to like that sort of thing. If there are any females who like that, then you could put them in the same army or another separate army so that they would not encourage those conditions while among other females who don't like the rough stuff. You have to deprive the ones who are grabbing the things that don't belong to them of those things they are grabbing. This is adolescence at its worst and needs to be handled by advice from professionals sometimes.
If I'm fighting some bad guys in some dump country, I don't need little susie next to me.
Now I have to protect her and fight the bad guys, all because she really wants to be a man.
If they want to let just anyone and everyone in the military, then we can't remain number one long.
And it sure looks like that's what this so called administration is doing.
This is what happens when men and women are put together in stressful situations. This comes from our insistance on being politically correct. Men go to war, women support their husbands and sons. Women have no place in a battlefield environment, they are much too important to be involved.
Copyright © 2014 Microsoft. All rights reserved.
Fundamental company data and historical chart data provided by Morningstar Inc. Real-time index quotes and delayed quotes supplied by Morningstar Inc. Quotes delayed by up to 15 minutes, except where indicated otherwise. Fund summary, fund performance and dividend data provided by Morningstar Inc. Analyst recommendations provided by Zacks Investment Research. StockScouter data provided by Verus Analytics. IPO data provided by Hoover's Inc. Index membership data provided by Morningstar Inc.
[BRIEFING.COM] The stock market finished an upbeat week on a mixed note. The S&P 500 shed less than a point, ending the week higher by 1.3%, while the Dow Jones Industrial Average (+0.1%) cemented a 1.7% advance for the week. High-beta names underperformed, which weighed on the Nasdaq Composite (-0.3%) and the Russell 2000 (-1.3%).
Equity indices displayed strength in the early going with the S&P 500 tagging the 2,019 level during the opening 30 minutes of the action. However, ... More
More Market News
As geopolitical tensions threaten to spin out of control, investors are wondering how best to position their portfolios for the global turmoil.
MUST-SEE ON MSN
- Video: Easy DIY smoked meats at home
A charcuterie master shares his process for cold-smoking meat at home.
- Jetpacks about to go mainstream
- Weird things covered by home insurance
- Bing: 70 percent of adults report 'digital eye strain'