Air Force Responds to Sex Crime Scandal by Enforcing a Bizarre ‘Wingman Rule’

[obamanut2012]

(ie if you don't have a buddy with you and get raped, well, it's your fault, not the rapist's.)


Last summer, after 48 female military trainees said they had been sexually assaulted or otherwise unprofessionally treated by around two dozen instructors at the Lackland Air Force base, the Air Force reassured everyone they were launching an aggressive investigation that would get to the root of why so many officials view basic training as an all-you-can-eat sex crime buffet. Today, the Air Education and Training Command announced the solution: a "wingman policy." From now on, all Air Force trainees must be accompanied by at least one classmate at all times. What's next, chastity belts?

Look, the buddy system works great in kindergarten classrooms and summer camp field trips to theme parks! Bros in sports bars across America would be hopelessly lost without their slurring wingmen by their side. But when we're talking about a massive sex crime scandal in one of the military's busiest training centers that obviously (obviouslyyyyy) has something to do with the men in power — so far, the top commander of basic training has been fired, a staff sergeant has been sentenced to 20 years in prison for crimes including rape and aggravated sexual assault involving 10 trainees, five military training instructors have been convicted of sexual assaults or unprofessional relationships with trainees or students, and many others are still under investigation or have charges pending — a wingman policy is not only a dumb idea, it's an unbelievably offensive one.

"Can you imagine if leaders in our civilian society suggested that in order to prevent rape or assault we must never be alone?" Nancy Parrish, president of the Burlingame, California-based group, asked Bloomberg. (Uh, unfortunately, yes. But at least cops stop short of requiring ladies who dare to leave the house to stick together by law! For now.)

The most frustrating part of the Command's new policy is that SO many other people have come up with progressive, workable alternatives to combat rampant sex abuse in the military that focus on the system itself, not the system's victims, which are many: the Defense Department estimates that about 19,000 people are sexually assaulted per year. (Way fewer are reported, of course; and it's EASY TO SEE WHY.) Let's name some, shall we?

U.S. Representatives Loretta Sanchez, Susan Davis, and Jackie Speier are awesome advocates for the cause and have called for tougher military measures, including one that would make it a crime for a supervisor to know about sexual abuse but not report it. Hmm, is that a solution that blames the victim? Nope!

Speier has also said the military should revamp its judicial system so that sex crimes are handled outside the chain of command, making it so superiors won't try and hush things up to make themselves look better, an issue found to often be the case at Lackland. Hmm, is that a solution that blames the victim? Double nope!

Anu Bhagwati, a former Marine officer who is now the executive director of the Service Women's Action Network, has said boot camp's, well, boot-campish environment makes it hard to ask for help when you're being yelled at constantly; what about rethinking the ways trainees actually report sexual assault? Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has also talked about pushing policies that would make it easier for victims of sexual assault to come forward and be taken seriously. Hmm, is that a solution that blames the victim? Triple nope!

General Edward A. Rice Jr, the commander of training and education for the Air Force, has said he would consider hiring more female MTIs — MAYBE a good idea, since out of the 500 instructors who train about 35,000 cadets annually, only 11 percent are women, compared to 22 percent of the recruits. Hmm, is that a solution that blames the victim? Quadruple nope!

Hey, Command: any thoughts? We know, we know: trying to rework the system and change the culture does sound like a challenge. And a wingman system sounds so simple!

To be fair, The Air Education and Training Command also said it will "increase and strengthen leadership positions" at Lackland and that an expanded leadership orientation course "will place additional emphasis on the potential for abuse of power, sexual assault, unprofessional relationships, and maltreatment or maltraining." Thanks for throwing us a bone, guys! But why does the only clear-cut solution enforced so far penalize the trainees instead of the instructors — some of whom were unsurprisingly found, in an independent investigation by the Air Force chief of safety, to be "too immature and inexperienced to effectively exercise the authority and power they were given over trainees."

Huh. Too immature and inexperienced? Sounds like some people need to be treated like little kids and kept on a tight leash! (Or, you know, fired.) We're not talking about the trainees.

http://jezebel.com/5960820/air-force-responds-to-sex-crime-scandal-by-enforcing-a-bizarre-wingman-rule

[niyad]

1. k and r--cannot say what I think right now

[obamanut2012]

2. The Air Force is the worst of the different Services for some reason

[stevenleser]

3. I think it is a military wide issue for a number of reasons. There is definitely an issue at

Lackland AFB. But as this link shows: http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/14/health/military-sexual-assaults-personality-disorder/index.html there are big problems across the board.

I think there are a number of problems that contribute to this.

1. The military segregates itself somewhat from the civilian community. There is a separate culture in the military and in each of the branches from the civilian community.

2. That separate culture tends to be further to the conservative right than the civilian community. The kinds of things the women in the link related as to what was said to them after their assaults, you hear those things on the farthest right message forums. The right wingers who enlist or commission tend to reinforce each others viewpoints on things and make each other even more extreme. That includes attitudes towards women, minorities and the LGBT community. Obviously that is not the case everywhere, many places have no issues with women or any diversity group. But you see how this happens in certain places. The average ideological bent in the military is not far from what it is at Free Republic. The Air Force and Navy actually tend to be the more progressive services. The Army and Marine Corps tend to be the furthest right wing, to the point that they found neo-nazi paraphernalia and kkk in various marine and army baracks and an active KKK group at one marine base http://www.salon.com/2009/06/15/neo_nazis_army/ .

3. Military training environments where trainees/recruits are subject to emotional hazing have a lot of good people in command and in their NCO cadres, but they also tend to attract those people who want to emotionally haze people, i.e. for lack of a better term, people with some sadistic tendencies. But I want to stress, most of the drill/training instructors are really good people. In the Lackland situation, there are 500+ drill/training instructors and less than 20 or so were under investigation.

More soon...

On edit: Fulldisclosure - I am former USAF enlisted and yes, went through Basic Training at Lackland AFB

[niyad]

6. there are the ongoing scandals at the AFA, as well. however, I know from experience that the navy

has a similar problem--one wherein I repeatedly saw women who reported sexual abuse being thrown out, while the perpetrators remained (tailhook, anyone?)

the whole military system is complicit from top to bottom, and I don't see things changing in the near future.

"wingman policy"??? yah, because, after all, if you are never alone, nothing can ever happen to you (like telling the women in iraq and afghanistan to never go to the bathroom by themselves, instead of dealing with the perps.)

oh yah, the military makes me feel all safe and secure.

[Starry Messenger]

4. Link for the group in B-Game.

http://www.protectourdefenders.com/ I'm going to try to find out more, since I am based here too.

[obamanut2012]

5. Terrific, thanks!

[Kaleva]

7. Sometimes when overseas we had to be in groups in order to go on liberty

One couldn't leave the ship unless signed out with at least one other and those who returned without their buddy or group faced losing liberty privelages or being placed on report.

It was for our own safety that this was done.

[obamanut2012]

8. Was it to protect yourselves from being raped by fellow service members

On board your own ship or on your own base?

[Kaleva]

9. No but don't you think it wise to take precautionary measures?

When I was stationed in Philadelphia, we were advised not to walk thru parts of South Philly on our own lest we be attacked by one of the gangs there. Some sailors didn't follow that advice and ended up in the hospital after being robbed and badly beaten. One shouldn't have to walk around in an American city in groups for protection but there is only so much local law enforcement can do.

[obamanut2012]

10. A rape culture isn't stopped by putting the onus on the potential victims

And not actually, you know, STOPPING THE RAPISTS and the culture that gives them free hand.

Which is what the OP is about, and not shore leave.

[Kaleva]

11. A rape culture is stopped by years, maybe decades, of education and zero tolerence.

DU itself exhibits some tolerance towards prison rape jokes as we have members who make such jokes and juries that vote to leave them. It may take months before there is zero tolerance here for that kind of stuff but it's a small part of the journey towards the bigger goal which is "stopping the rapists and the culture that gives them a free hand".

In the meantime, it's wise to take some precautionary steps to protect oneself and others and I've given examples from my experience in the Navy.

[obamanut2012]

14. Correct, and the "buddy system" in the OP is 100% tolerance

Not zero. It puts the onus of stopping rape on the VICTIMS, not the rapists.

[Kaleva]

15. How do you stop a rapist before he/she commits the act?

[mythology]

18. Give the higher ranking officer a buddy

Since it's been proven that so many of the higher ranking officers can't control their baser instincts, give them a buddy to ensure that they have somebody to be accountable to.

[Gormy Cuss]

12. The buddy system wasn't meant to protect service members from their own kind though, was it?

The Air Force has just admitted that there is no discipline, that they can not use the hierarchy and code to keep trainees safe. That's pretty sobering.

The other thought I had is that with a buddy system, will people who are assaulted in the future be held culpable because they didn't have their buddies with them? What about when the buddies are assaulted together? Will it still be their fault?

[Kaleva]

13. Rapists should never be considered to be part of one's own kind.

The military is a cross section of the general public and you have some of the best of the best, a whole bunch of average types and some of the worst of the worst. Screening and boot camp weeds out many of the bad ones but not all.

Your comment:

"The other thought I had is that with a buddy system, will people who are assaulted in the future be held culpable because they didn't have their buddies with them? What about when the buddies are assaulted together? Will it still be their fault?"

If it's an order, then one can be held liable for failing to obey a lawful order. Towards the end of my time in the service, it became a standing order that anyone driving or riding in a motor vehicle had to wear a seat belt even if the state one was driving in didn't require it. If one was involved in an accident and wasn't wearing a seat belt, even if the operator of the other vehicle was at fault, the punishment was the service person who was injured may be held responsible for all medical costs or if killed, the life insurance policy would be forfeited. Failure to obey a lawful order had consequences even if another was at fault.

[Gormy Cuss]

16. See, it's that "lawful order" part that is awkward because it's blaming the trainees

when the blame belongs on the rapists/sexual assailants and in some cases their up-the-chain supervisors who failed to act swiftly and decisively.

The buddy system may be okay as a stop-gap but it isn't addressing the larger organizational failures. I saw in the comments that the Army has had a trainee buddy systems for ten years or so -- if the impetus for that system was also sexual assaults, it's time that the Army deal with the real issues too and stop placing the burden on the lowest level personnel.

[Kaleva]

17. The rapist is still entirely responsible for his/her crime.

The blame for that crime rests entirely on the person who committed it. The trainee not following a lawful order is no defense nor is it a defense for higher ups not to take swift and decisive action.

The buddy system is a stop gap measure and it of itself does not address larger organizational failures and I don't think anyone is trying to argue otherwise.