E-mail: Benworks@AOL.Com

--Speak the Truth and Shame The Devil--

NOTE: This archive, intended for research purposes, contains copyrighted material included "for fair use only."

1. BC Works Commentary on II Samuel: 11; David, Bathsheba and Uriah the Hittite
2. US Army Inspector General's Report, April 1997, Gender-Integrated Initial Entry Training
3. Readers Digest, Feb. 1999, C. Aspy, Should Women Go Into Combat?
4. Army Times, Jan. 16, 1995; Gender Integration a Motivator for Women
5. BC Works Commentary on Proceedings, June 1997, "Much Ado About Nothing"
6. Army Times, June 9, 1997; General Stands by Gender Integrated Training
7. USA Today, March 15, 1999; Military struggles to keep women soldiers
8. Wash Times, March 16, 1999; Co-Ed Military Training Saluted
9. NY Times, March 18, 1999; Retired General Is Penalized, but Not Jailed, in Adultery Case

The Clinton Administration and its ideological feminist supporters are doing their best to maintain the appearance that gender-integrated training in the Army, Navy and Air Force is a success, while the facts increasingly indicate that it is a failure.

It is a failure because training standards are reduced, discipline in the barracks cannot be maintained (out of fear of sexual harassment charges) and sensitivity training gets increased at the expense of military training. Further, the feminists have forced the condition that pregnant soldiers must be retained and unwed mothers must be accepted as normal in a culture that stresses discipline, honor and loyalty. Enlisted women have learned that if they do not like a duty assignment --particularly an unpleasant peacekeeping deployment, all they have to do to get out of it is to get pregnant. This places an additional burden on their male comrades, who have to shoulder the extra load.

I do not expect Liberals to accept the word of an unrepentant gentleman-ranker, but I ask the reader to pay attention to the Inspector General's report (article #2) and to Catherine Aspy, a 1992 Harvard Graduate who spent two years in the enlisted ranks on active duty after college. Her Feb. 1999 Readers Digest article is a candid revelation (Article #3).

Feminization of the military was already a problem in 1989, but political feminism was stronger than the political will to keep a tough military ready to fight. A committee had been empanelled to monitor the status and treatment of women: the Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services --"DACOWITS."

In the need to unseat George Bush after Desert Storm, the feminists got a lucky break in the "Tailhook" scandal, which was predicated on the assumption that virgins are to be found in Las Vegas convention hotels. A disgruntled Navy aide ratted out the aviators for partying too hearty and Bush, himself a former Navy aviator and Tailhook member, was in trouble.

Politically motivated skirmishes have continued ever since. The worst problem is really that of fraternization and adulterous affairs among officers and wives, and among officers and enlisted people. The Bible warned about that in the affair of David and Bathsheba, where her husband, Uriah the Hittite, was deliberately set up to be killed in battle so that David could consummate his desires (article#1). Commanders can order spouses out of the way, even order them into death traps.

Trials of male non-commissioned officers (NCOs --Sergeants) including Command Sergeant Major Gene McKinney and the training NCOs at Aberdeen Proving Grounds, MD, added an additional stress as they raised the ugly issue of race: Black leaders became nervous as their feminist allies demanded scalps over the issue of the NCOs fraternizing with young trainees. This almost led to "Left-on-Left violence," but Black leaders kept quiet publicly as sentences were meted out.

There is also a clear difference in how officers are treated vs. how enlisted ranks are treated in these scandals; Generals, in particular, tend to get off light: See General David Hale's sentence for adultery (article #9).

Pat Schroeder and official Washington continue to try to peddle the success of integrated training, but the Army, Navy and Air Force have serious disciplinary and retention problems with women and men. Only the Marines have been spared from this politically-correct curse, as even the Liberal Establishment has been forced to accept that somebody who really knows how to fight has to be kept around to spearhead the Left's enlightened adventures in nation-building in Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo and God knows where else.

Benjamin Works

Brian Mitchell, "The Weak Link" (Wash. DC: Regnery-Gateway, 1989)

* * * *

1. David, Bathsheba and Uriah:  This cautionary tale of desire & treachery is one important reason why modern Armed Forces discourage adultery and fraternization in the ranks and between officers and enlisted personnel; leaders have control over their subordinates lives:

David had an affair with Bathsheba and got her with child, knowing her "in the Biblical Way". He sent for Uriah, then in the field with the army, hoping the soldier would sleep with his wife, thus providing a "reason" for her pregnancy, but Uriah was a man of duty:

Since Uriah was one of his soldiers and would not shirk his duty in order to lie with his wife to cover up her prior impregnation, the lust-befuddled king decided to rid himself of the husbandly impediment:

-  II Samuel 11: 2..17 

* Note that Uriah is identified as a Hittite and therefore was not a Jew by birth; David had an easy decision making him "expendable."

December 1996--April 1997 (22 July 1997)

(3c) Trainee-Trainee Consensual Sex. Many in the chain of command [COC] at one installation believe it unrealistic to stop IET [initial entry training, the whole period from basic through advanced, job specific training] trainee-trainee consensual sex. The most common reason given for this was the COC inability to provide adequate oversight in the barracks, given the high frequency of such incidents. Many units remove their drill sergeants from the billets by 2100 each night to reduce the risk of cadre-trainee abuse. This decrease in oversight during after-duty hours creates a potential window for trainee-trainee sexual misconduct...despite the fact that the installation regulation clearly prohibits such activity. (6-13)

(3a) Many of the First Sergeants interviewed indicated trainee-trainee consensual sex occurred quite often, but felt the chain of command was reluctant to enforce the installation regulation (or TRADOC Reg 350-6, AR 600-20... (6-20)

(4f) At all three installations inspected there was clear evidence (courts martial, chapter records and other disciplinary records, and interview results) that some number of drill sergeants and other cadre members engaged in non-consensual sex with female trainees and a larger number engaged in consensual sex with female trainees. Additionally, the chain of command believes that sexual activity between trainees is an area of indiscipline requiring constant attention. (6-16)

(1b) Gender-Integrated Living. In early 1996, a Brigade Commander issued a policy letter requiring female trainees' living quarters be integrated into platoon areas with their male platoon members. Many in the chain of command cite movement of females to the male living areas as being a primary cause for trainee-trainee SH/SM [sexual harassment/sexual misconduct] incidents. (6-17)

(1d) Lack of unambiguously separate and secure sleeping areas for female trainees appears to be a risk factor for sexual misconduct incidents in training units. (6-6)

(4b) Command Presence. Inconsistent and/or inadequate command presence contributed to the commander's lack of awareness of what was going on in the IET units. (6-15)

(4a) The problem, in some cases, was the company commanders, and to some extent, the battalion commanders did not know what they were looking for in the way of indicators of the problems experienced. To further exacerbate the problem, the installation and brigade chains of command did not realize this shortcoming. (6-21)

Contemporary Attitudes (a) Finding. Trainee acceptance of popular culture messages that adult extra-marital consensual sex is acceptable contributes to increased trainee susceptibility to sexual harassment and misconduct. (5-5)

(c) Inspection Result. 96% of trainees and 100% of cadre interviewed expressed a thorough understanding of the rules of prohibited trainee and cadre relationships. However, some trainees expressed beliefs about sexual mores that are in contravention with Army policy. They also exhibited a poor understanding of the relation of the Army's policy to unit good order and discipline, and a lack of understanding of the potential adverse consequences of violating the policy. (5-5)

Soldier Confidence...trainees and cadre lack confidence in overall Army sexual harassment efforts. Trainee concerns stem from adverse media reports and the apparent continuation of sexual harassment problems within the Army. Cadre confidence concerns relate to three issues: their perceptions that cadre accused of sexual harassment are treated as guilty and punished before an appropriate investigation is conducted; the widespread cadre fear of unfounded sexual harassment complaints against them; and cadre perceptions of a double standard regarding punishment of cadre/trainee consensual sex. Cadre concerns are widespread, threaten morale, and warrant Army-wide attention. (vi)

* * * *

Feb 1999 Readers Digest

Inside my boots my feet had turned to hamburger. My uniform, even my belt, was soaking with sweat, and my back and shoulders were numb from the 40 pounds of gear in my rucksack. The climax of Army basic training at Fort Jackson, S.C., a 12-mile march, was almost over.

Determined to keep up, I forced my exhausted muscles to move. But few of the other women in the company remained with me near the front. Many were straggling, and some rode the truck that followed to retrieve discarded rucksacks. The men, meanwhile, were swinging along, calling cadence. They seemed to relish the whole thing.

That march confirmed something which had struck me often during the previous eight weeks: with rare exceptions, the women in my unit could not physically compete with the men. Many were unable to lift heavy weights, scale barriers or pull themselves along a rope suspended above a safety net. Mixed running groups had inevitably sorted themselves out by sex; in final tests on two-mile runs, the average woman took 18 minutes, the average man about 14. It was apparent that too many of the men werenât challenged enough by the training regimen.

There were certainly good soldiers among the women in my company; later on, during regular duty at a military-intelligence installation, I saw women of all the service branches perform as well as or better than men in a variety of capacities. Nevertheless, the huge physical performance gap, so obvious in basic training, forced me to consider the implications of placing women in ground combat units.

Today the nearly 200,000 women in the nationâs armed forces (14 percent of all active-duty personnel) serve as everything from Air Force fighter pilots to military police officers to captains of Navy ships. But the direct combat arms of the Army and Marines÷including infantry, armor and field artillery÷are closed to them.

Should women be allowed into these units as well? Many believe they should. After all, we Americans resent being barred from anything; itâs part of our instinct for freedom. Former Rep. Patricia Schroeder (D., Colo.) declared, "Combat-exclusion laws have outlived their usefulness and are now nothing more than institutionalized discrimination."

Itâs not an issue I thought about much when I enlisted. Iâm sure if I had been asked at the time whether women should be allowed in combat, I would have at least said, "maybe."

Now I say "no." Everything I observed during my hitch in the Army, and later, as I studied the issue and talked to others inside and outside the military, has convinced me this would be a mistake.

Combat is not primarily about brains, or patriotism, or dedication to duty. There is no question women soldiers have those in abundance. Combat is about war-fighting capacity and the morale of the unit. Here physical strength can be a life-and-death issue. And that is why the physical disparities between men and women cannot be ignored.

Unequal Load. For years, Sgt. Kelly Logan* believed that women should be allowed into combat units, that "it didnât matter if you were a man or a woman÷there is one standard, we all meet it, bond, and drive on with the mission." Then came her 1997 tour of duty with peacekeeping forces in Bosnia. "I had a complete change in attitude," she says. "When we had to do things like digging and reinforcing bunkers, the guys ended up doing most of the physical work. The women tended to move themselves to the sidelines." Logan watched resentment build until it undermined the unitâs morale.

She also observed that many women were "so unprepared for heavy-duty soldiering that they would have endangered the unit in a crisis." Patrolling in Bosnia required soldiers to remain on high alert and in full battle gear, including flak vests and ammo. Says Logan: "The equipment prevented many of the women from moving as quickly as men, let alone being combat-effective."

While some women may be up to the rigors of combat, she says, "they are the rare exception. And for some individuals, it was only a matter of time before the platonic bonds progressed to sex, and then all kinds of disruptions ensued."

Logan has reluctantly concluded that "women cannot bond with men in a unit the same way men do." But she cannot say so openly, and insisted that her real name not be used. "It can definitely hurt your career to speak your mind publicly about these things."

The expectation in military units has always been that you pull your own load. But an Apache helicopter pilot told me that his female crew chief simply refused to carry her tools, which weighed 60 to 80 pounds.

"The Army is supposed to be about not showing favoritism," says Desert Storm veteran Sam Ryskind, who was a mechanic in the famed 82nd Airborne Division. "But the females I trained with were de facto exempted from any heavy-lifting jobs."

Whether it was changing truck tires, loading cargo, or even moving heavy cooking pots into position on the chow line, Ryskind says men "always pulled the hard work. Pretty soon this made it an us-and-them situation."

While these experiences do not reflect actual combat conditions, they point to the kinds of intractable problems that would arise if women were in combat units.

In 1994 an Army rule barring women from hundreds of "combat support" positions was eliminated. Meanwhile the Army tried to institute tests to match a soldierâs physical strength to a specific "military occupational specialty," or MOS. Then it was discovered that the tests would have disqualified most Army women from 65 percent of the more than 200 MOSs. The tests were scrapped.

The Strength Factor. To deal with the male-female performance gap, the Army has increased emphasis on "teamwork." No one is against teamwork÷thatâs the essence of the military. But in some cases it has become a euphemism for defining down military tasks, as when three or four soldiers are needed to carry an injured comrade instead of two.

"From a combat standpoint this is just ludicrous," notes William Gregor, a veteran of combat in Vietnam who is now associate professor of social sciences at the Armyâs School of Advanced Military Studies in Fort Leavenworth, Kan. "You may not have extra people around. And battle wears you down. A unit where one person canât pull his or her weight becomes a weaker unit."

Iâm five feet, six inches tall, and I arrived at basic training weighing 135 pounds. I was taller than many women in my unit. But the average female soldier is 4.7 inches shorter and 33.9 pounds lighter than her male counterpart. She has 37.8 pounds less lean body mass. This is critical because greater lean body mass is closely related to physical strength.

A U.S. Navy study of dynamic upper-torso strength in 38 men and women found that the women possessed about half the lifting power of the men. In another Navy study, the top seven percent of 239 women scored in the same range as the bottom seven percent of men in upper-body strength.

Even though I had been athletic in high school and had been toughened by two monthsâ training, that final 12-mile march was a killer. One reason: cardiorespiratory capacity÷the rate at which the heart, lungs and blood vessels deliver oxygen to working muscles. Trainers know that this capacity is key to sustained physical performance. And numerous studies have revealed differences by sex. "In general," summarized the 1992 Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces, "women have a smaller heart mass, heart volume and cardiac output than men."

Some who want women in combat units acknowledge these differences, but claim theyâre based on stereotyping and can be minimized by extra training. It isnât that simple.

In a 1997 Army study, for example, 46 women were given a specially designed 24-week physical-training program to see if they could improve their ability to do "very heavy" lifting. During the training, the number of women who qualified for these jobs increased from 24 percent to 78 percent. Still, on average they were unable to match the lifting performance of men who did not undergo the program.

But what about those few women who might qualify for combat units? Gregor, who has done extensive research on male-female physical performance, questions how realistic it is to train 100 women for combat on the chance of finding a handful who will meet÷or in exceptional cases exceed÷the minimum requirements.

Tougher Standards? The interchangeability of every soldier in a combat emergency is an enduring principle of an armyâs effectiveness as a fighting force. It assumes that each has received the same training and can perform to the same basic standard. Thatâs still true for men who sign up to go directly into the Armyâs combat arms. They train "the old way," in a harsh, demanding environment.

Itâs no longer true elsewhere. Under mixed-gender basic training instituted in 1994, men and women are held to different standards. The regimen became less challenging, to hide the difference in physical performance between men and women (although the Army denies this).

Eventually, the softness of basic training became an object of such widespread public ridicule that "tougher" rules were drawn up. Even with these new standards, scheduled to take effect this month, women can score as well as men who are being tested against a tougher standard. In the 17-to-21 age group, for example, to get a minimum score of 50 points, a male recruit must do 35 push-ups, a female, 13. If women were allowed into combat units and these double standards were made universal, the result would be to put physically weaker forces into the field.

An Army publicity release defended these "tougher" standards on the ground that they "promote gender equity" and "level the playing field."

I donât know about the "playing" field. But somehow I think the field of actual combat will not be very level.

[*Not her real name.]

___________________________________________________

Catherine l. Aspy graduated from Harvard in 1992 and served two years in the Army. She is now in the Individual Ready Reserve. Aspy was assisted in the reporting of this article by the Readerâs Digest

* * * *

Army Times 01-16-95 Issue

By Paulette V. Walker

WASHINGTON -- Gender-integrated basic training is going to improve the quality of training for female soldiers, improve respect for women in the Army and enhance readiness, said experts and leaders familiar with the issue.

``Basic training has not been a positive experience for females in all-female companies,'' said Jacqueline Mottern, a researcher at the Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences. Mottern is the principal investigator for gathering and interpreting data from the Army's gender-integrated basic training program.

``Frankly, in all-female companies, basic training is easier,'' Mottern said.

Army leaders point out that it hasn't been particularly effective, either.

``I've seen some all-female units that have scared me,'' said Maj. Gen. William J. Bolt, commanding general at Fort Jackson, S.C. ``They weren't trained well, and it's easier to get away with that because they're all female.''

Others have made the same observation.

``The first time I saw an all-female company go through an obstacle course at Fort Jackson, it was one of the most disappointing training events I saw in all my years there,'' said Maj. Gen. Richard A. Chilcoat, commandant of the U.S. Army War College, Carlisle Barracks, Pa. ``They approached the obstacle course as if they were playing on a jungle gym outside a junior high school.''

``When I did see a gender-integrated company go through that course, they approached it with the same aggressiveness and toughness, initiative, even daring that the male soldiers did,'' Chilcoat said.

The females in gender-integrated basic training companies were more motivated, Chilcoat said. ``I've talked with hundreds of female trainees, and they will tell you ... females don't operate together the way they do in a coed environment. They just don't bond as well.''

Chilcoat was the deputy commanding general of Fort Jackson during the installation's 1993 experiment with gender-integrated basic training. He briefed Army Chief of Staff Gen. Gordon Sullivan and Army Secretary Togo West on the test results, days before they announced the program as policy.

His observations are backed by data from the Army Research Institute that compares the attitudes of female soldiers in gender-specific units and with those of women in gender-integrated units. The study shows that women in coed basic training units show an improved degree of mental toughness, improved level of self confidence and are more likely to feel inspired by their platoon comrades to perform well.

That same study shows similar results when males in gender-specific units were compared with males in gender-integrated units.

Preliminary data from the first gender-integrated companies at Fort Jackson also show that male and female performance was better in basic rifle marksmanship and physical fitness.

Female trainees in gender-integrated companies agree.

``I feel like I'm pushed to my limit,'' said Pvt. Beverly Weinel, 22, of Pittsburgh. ``But that's good, because I know that I'm getting the same quality training that the men are getting. Maybe this will do away with all the rumors that women aren't good soldiers.''

Ultimately, said Chilcoat, gender-integrated basic training will ``enhance the readiness of our units by giving them better soldiers.''

``Don't expect that overnight the military ... will go completely gender-blind,'' Mottern said. ``But what may happen is that male and female soldiers who are trained together and work together will learn to respect one another's ability as soldiers.''

Copyright 1995, Army Times Publishing Company. All rights reserved.

Transmitted: 12/8/95 10:58 AM (A00001OG)

* * * *

There are two kinds of people in the US Armed Services; the majority of men and women, who serve honestly and ardently, and a minority of men and women who exploit the system.

Without doing any disservice or offering insult, the following development in the services must be noted for the record. It is about women who get pregnant in order to get out of tough, or unwanted duty assignments. This phenomenon first became a matter of comment during Operation Desert Shield-Desert Storm in 1990-91. I recall a South Carolina Army National Guard Trucking Company that reported dockside for shipment to the Gulf with 18 women out of its 120 people pregnant and therefore unable to deploy --someone else had to pick up the slack. There was also the matter of "The Love Boat," a Navy support vessel with a high pregnancy rate.

* In 1997 such are the pressures of Feminist Politics and Political Correctness on the uniformed services that the Captain of a submarine Tender, USS LY Spear, in order to preserve his career, reported "sucess" while experiencing a loss of 63 of his 389 women crew members due to pregnancy --a rate of 16.2% attrition among the women aboard. The total ship's complement was 1442; 73% male (1053) and 27% female (389):

* * *

Army Times Published: 06-09-97 Page: 3

By Sean D. Naylor

Training and Doctrine Command chief Gen. William Hartzog said May 28 that despite the Aberdeen sex scandal, he still believes in gender-integrated training. He also blamed the sexual misconduct cases at Aberdeen on "a few bad apples."

However, in a breakfast meeting with reporters in Washington, he announced measures intended to reduce the risk of sexual misconduct in training companies. He also said that within the next two weeks, he would decide which members of the chain of command, if any, at the Ordnance Center and School at Maryland's Aberdeen Proving Ground he would hold responsible for events there.

Twelve members of the training cadre have been charged with sexual misconduct related to trainees at Aberdeen. Three have been convicted in courts-martial and three are awaiting courts-martial. The other six received non-judicial punishment or have not yet been referred to courts-martial.

"Nothing has changed my mind that there were a few bad apples (at Aberdeen)," Hartzog said. "I don't believe -- and there is no indication (from) any of the inspections that are going on -- that basic training...is broken in any way."

However, he said, "there were some supervisory things that needed to be done, and that I am doing."

Among these additional supervisory measures is the addition of 110 lieutenants to serve as executive officers in advanced individual training (AIT) companies.

Unlike companies in line units, which contain six officers, the captains who commanded the AIT companies at Aberdeen that were involved in the scandal were the only officers in their organizations. The 110 lieutenants will be assigned to AIT companies that were not previously authorized executive officers.

Hartzog said adding the newly minted lieutenants would free up other, more experienced leaders in the training companies to provide more supervision.

Hartzog also said he was placing more chaplains in basic training organizations, filling another gap identified in the wake of the Aberdeen scandal.

The TRADOC commander also said he was revamping "personal relations training" for both instructors and trainees to make it more "participatory."

"We were still doing an awful lot of training that was instructor- pupil oriented: instructor says, pupil listens, tests, that standard sort of format," Hartzog said. "I think it's far more effective if we spend the time doing case studies and putting in that business the same sort of after-action reporting and honesty and openness that we have in our tactical training today.

"We're just about halfway through redoing the entire bevy of personal relations training that we use to put it in that form," he said. "Is that going to be effective? Yeah, I think so."

Hartzog said he still believes that gender-integrated initial entry training is, "on balance," the best way to prepare male and female trainees who will be working with each other once they reach their first assignments, even though such training "probably" results in some consensual sex.

However, when asked whether he would change anything about gender-integrated training, Hartzog said he would like to change the living conditions so that men and women in integrated training platoons were housed closer together to foster unit integrity, while respecting privacy concerns.

The TRADOC commander also said that he had recommended that the Army screen the records of potential drill sergeants and instructors further back than three years, which is now the practice.

"There are certain patterns of misconduct that need to be exposed," he said, adding he was referring to "interpersonal relationship things."

The Army is also considering introducing more rigorous psychological testing for potential drill sergeants and instructors, along the lines of the testing used in selecting special operations troops, he said.

But Hartzog also suggested some of the sexual problems the Army is facing in its training companies result from the social milieu from which the service's recruits are drawn. Today's teenagers have very different attitudes toward sexuality than even those of a few years ago, he said.

"I have a 17-year-old son in an inner-city high school, and I cringe every time I walk down the hall because I don't like what I see," he said. "It isn't what I'm comfortable with in terms of standards, but that is the clientele that we draw into the Army."

Copyright 1997 Army Times Publishing Company. All Rights Reserved.

Transmitted: 6/9/97 3:35 PM (at06095)

* * * *

Andrea Stone, USA TODAY, Mar. 15, 1999

WASHINGTON - White women are leaving the military before the end of their first enlistment at a far greater rate than any other group, Defense Department statistics show.

The numbers, obtained by USA TODAY, show that 43% of white women fail to complete their first enlistment because of physical problems, pregnancy, failure to adapt to the military or other reasons.

By contrast, just a third of black women, black men and white men are discharged during their first enlistment. Slightly fewer Hispanics, 31% of women and 26% of men, don't complete their first term. The average enlistment is three years; enlistments vary from two to six years.

Defense officials say they cannot explain the phenomenon, but they find it worrisome at a time when the all-volunteer military is having difficulty filling its ranks.

Yet because of the sensitive nature of race and gender issues, officials are hesitant to draw attention to the problem. The overall attrition rate has been high for more than a decade and, in absolute numbers, most of those leaving are men.

For a Pentagon hard-pressed to enlist recruits and unable to retain experienced people, the loss of one in three first-term service members poses a threat to military readiness.

And with women comprising 14% of the armed forces and 18% of enlistees, any losses among them take on a sense of urgency now that the military's post-Cold War downsizing is complete. Among all women in the armed services, white women account for 55%.

"You would have to bring the draft back without white females or females in general," says John Sibley Butler, a military sociologist at the University of Texas.

The failure rate also is expensive: It costs more than $35,000 to recruit and train each enlistee. The picture is bleakest in the Army, where enlisted minority women outnumber white women 61%-39%. More than half of white female soldiers, 54%, who enlisted in 1994 were back to civilian life three years later.

Charles Moskos, the Northwestern University military sociologist who gathered the statistics and provided them to USA TODAY, says an explanation for the exodus is that white women unhappy in the military may feel they have more economic alternatives outside.

* * * *

By Rowan Scarborough

A congressionally appointed commission recommends that the military continue training male and female recruits in mixed units and barracks, congressional sources said yesterday.

Six commissioners voted for the status quo, three abstained and one voted against coed training. The House Armed Services Committee will release the report of the Commission on Military Training and

Gender-Related Issues tomorrow.

The report, a copy of which was obtained by The Washington Times, says: "The commission concludes that the services are providing the soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines required by the operating forces to carry out their assigned missions; therefore, each service should be allowed to continue to conduct basic training in accordance with its current policies. This includes the manner in which basic trainees are housed and organized into units."

The commission is made up of former Defense Department officials, retired military personnel and academicians.

The vote by the ideologically polarized panel is a setback for conservatives, who have pressured the Army, Navy and Air Force to revert to separating the sexes in boot camp. The Marine Corps follows that policy.

The commission said its "recommendation is based on our conclusion that, in general, the ways in which the services are currently conducting their training, including the gender formats, sustain mission readiness."

The new report will counter momentum for sex separation created last year when a panel appointed by Defense Secretary William S. Cohen voted 11-0 to recommend segregation at the small-unit level and same-sex barracks in boot camp.

The committee, led by former Sen. Nancy Kassebaum Baker, Kansas Republican, called its proposals a "common sense" approach.

"The committee observed that, although the main aim of the Army, Navy and Air Force's 'train as we fight' doctrine is to instill teamwork and discipline, the present organizational structure in integrated basic training is resulting in less discipline, less unit cohesion and more distractions from the training program," said the Kassebaum Baker report by six women and five men.

Conservatives used the report in 1998 to win House passage of legislation directing the three services to change policy. But a bipartisan group of senators blocked the legislation, largely on the argument that lawmakers should not reverse policy until the congressionally appointed panel filed its report.

That deadline came yesterday when the panel submitted an interim report to the House and Senate.

Congressional sources said six members voted for the status quo: former Pentagon official Frederick Pang, ex-Navy official Barbara Pope, sociologist Mady Wechler Segal, University of Michigan provost Nancy Cantor, retired Sgt. Maj. Robert Dare and retired Marine Corps Lt. Gen. George Christmas.

Commission Chairman Anita Blair, sociologist Charles Moskos and retired Marine Lt. Gen. William Keys abstained from voting. Tom Moore, a military analyst at the Heritage Foundation, voted against sex-integrated training of recruits.

Because Republican and Democratic lawmakers each appointed members, the Blair commission was ideologically divided from the start. Four liberal members staged a brief walkout last year in a dispute over staffing.

Mrs. Blair and other members are scheduled to testify tomorrow before the House Armed Services subcommittee on military personnel.

Rep. Roscoe G. Bartlett, a subcommittee member who is active in the drive for separate-sex recruit training, vowed to continue the fight.

The Maryland Republican said: "I've thought for some time now the commission was heading toward this inevitable conclusion. I was disappointed when these commissioners were initially selected, believing that many of them did not enter this process with an open mind and that many had an agenda that they brought to the table."

"As I've said from the beginning, the Congress must implement the findings of the Kassebaum commission, which was a diverse panel that came to a unanimous conclusion that gender-integrated training is not in the best interest of our young men and women."

Mr. Pang and Mrs. Pope pushed women's issues while in the Pentagon, as has Mrs. Segal through her work as a consultant.

On the other hand, Mr. Moore and Mrs. Blair in the past had expressed doubts about mixed-sex training.

The Army and Navy switched to coed boot camp in 1994. The Air Force has trained that way for years.

The Marine Corps defends segregated training, saying it wants recruits to focus on becoming Marines without sexual distractions.

Mr. Cohen rejected separate units and barracks for male and female recruits after the Army, Navy and Air Force opposed the recommendations of the Kassebaum Baker commission.

http://www.washtimes.com/nation/nation1.html

Copyright The Washington Times March 16, 1999

* * * *

By DAVID STOUT

WASHINGTON -- A retired two-star Army general who admitted to committing adultery with the wives of four subordinates was ordered Wednesday to pay $22,000 in penalties but was spared a prison sentence after his lawyer argued that his client's valor in Vietnam outweighed his misconduct.

The defendant, Maj. Gen. David R. E. Hale, was reprimanded, fined $10,000 and ordered to forfeit $1,000 a month for a year from his $6,312-a-month pension. He could have been sent to prison for up to 11 years.

The sentence was imposed at Fort Lewis, Wash., by Col. Stephen Saynisch, the presiding judge at General Hale's court-martial. It must be reviewed by the commanding officer of the First Corps and Fort Lewis, Lieut. Gen. George A. Crocker, before it becomes final.

General Crocker may reduce the sentence but cannot impose a more severe one, said Capt. Tanya Schierling, a legal liaison officer to the fort's public affairs office.

General Hale, 53, was the highest-ranking officer to be court-martialed since 1952. The lead prosecutor, Maj. Michael Mulligan, had urged time in prison "to send a message there is no difference between the lowliest private and a general." Prosecutors had also asked for a $125,000 fine and a $1,466 monthly deduction from General Hale's pension.

"Justice has in fact been served," said Donald Mancuso, the Defense Department inspector general who oversaw the initial investigation, asserting at a news conference that General Hale's case would "cause other officers to think twice."

But Representative Nita M. Lowey, a New York Democrat, had a different view. "This slap on the wrist raises serious questions about the Pentagon's commitment to equal justice," she said tonight. "We cannot have one standard for the brass and another for the enlisted."

Ms. Lowey was highly critical of the Air Force's treatment of First Lieut. Kelly Flinn, who was given a less-than-honorable discharge from the Air Force on charges of adultery and lying about it.

Before sentencing, General Hale told the court, "I cannot express adequately how sorry I am, how embarrassed I am, for the pain I have brought the U.S. Army, my fellow soldiers and my family and friends."

The general had agreed on Tuesday to plead guilty to eight counts of misconduct stemming from his adulterous relationships.

He admitted to one count of making false official statements, by lying to the Pentagon's deputy inspector general, and seven counts of conduct unbecoming an officer and gentleman, for having "improper relations while married" with the wives of four subordinates, for denying it to one of the husbands and for misleading the Army's inspector general about the accusations.

The Army agreed to drop 11 other counts, including one that accused him of threatening one of the women that he would testify against her in a child-custody case.

Had he been convicted on all the original charges, General Hale could have faced 56 years in prison.

The general told the court that his life began to fall apart when his marriage ended after nearly three decades. He was accused of preying upon the wives of subordinates in Turkey from 1996 to 1998, singling out women he thought were having their own marital troubles.

The general's fall from grace ended what had once been a brilliant career: he won a Silver Star for valor in Vietnam, was appointed deputy inspector general of the Army in 1996 and seemed well on his way to winning a third star, perhaps even a fourth.

When he was allowed to retire honorably a year ago, even though the wife of a subordinate had filed a complaint accusing him of an improper sexual relationship, the Army came under intense criticism. Some saw a double standard, because lower-ranking officers and enlisted men and women in the Army and other services had been drummed out of uniform or forced to give up some retirement benefits for sexual transgressions.

The furor over General Hale prompted Defense Secretary William S. Cohen to decree a change in military-retirement policy, barring officers accused of misconduct from retiring until the charges against them are resolved.

Before his guilty plea, General Hale had maintained his innocence. He changed his plea, said his lawyer, Frank J. Spinner, out of a desire to bring the case "to a swift conclusion" and "to protect the Army, himself and others from embarrassment and pain."

Wednesday, Spinner asked Colonel Saynisch to consider the general's heroism in Vietnam and embarrassment in deciding upon a sentence.

Thursday, March 18, 1999

Copyright 1999 The New York Times

* * END FILE * *