Female GIs reporting rapes by U.S. soldiers

[thedrifter]

Female GIs reporting rapes by U.S. soldiers
Women say response lacking within military, some even threatened
MILES MOFFEIT AND AMY HERDY
Denver Post
Posted on Sat, Jan. 24, 2004

Female troops serving in Iraq are reporting an insidious enemy in their own camps: fellow American soldiers who sexually assault them.

At least 37 female service members have sought sexual-trauma counseling and other assistance from civilian rape-crisis organizations after returning from war duty in Iraq, Kuwait and other overseas stations, women's assistance and advocacy organizations say.

"We have significant concerns about the military's response to sexual assault in the combat zone," said Christine Hansen, executive director of the Connecticut-based Miles Foundation, which says it has assisted 31 women.

The women, ranging from enlisted soldiers to officers, have reported poor medical treatment, lack of counseling and incomplete criminal investigations by military officials. Some say they were threatened with punishment after reporting assaults.

The Pentagon did not respond to repeated requests for information about the number of sexual assault reports during the conflict. Defense officials would say only that they will not tolerate sexual assault in their ranks.

"Commanders at every level have a duty to take appropriate steps to prevent it, protect victims, and hold those who commit them accountable," a written statement from the Pentagon said.

Members of Congress said they are alarmed by the assault reports, confirming that they have learned of incidents as well. Colorado Sen. Wayne Allard said he intends to raise the issue with the Senate Armed Services Committee. Two Pennsylvania members of Congress, Rep. Joseph Pitts and Sen. Arlen Specter, intervened last month on one rape victim's behalf to bring her home.

Senate leaders pledged last year to investigate the military's handling of rape and domestic-violence cases after media reports of problems including flawed investigations, inadequate victim services and unusual leniency for soldier sex offenders. Congressional hearings were recommended, but none has been scheduled.

http://fairuse.1accesshost.com/news1/charlotte1.html


Sempers,

Roger
:marine:

[MillRatUSMC]

We can crunch numbers. like a message of one third of base or unit being non-deployable.
If it's a small base or unit one third of that base or unit are small numbers but if we are speaking of a large base or unit, those numbers would be unbelievable.
Now we see a number of 37 female soldiers reporting being assualted.
But if we weight those numbers against the total of females deployed to Afghanistan and Iraq (59,742 women have been or are currently serving in Iraq and Afghanistan).
They might appear small, but if a study shows that those assualts happened in one unit or division, than that unit shows a lack of leadership.
I know that it isn't a small matter to each individual female soldier.
Also Shaffer, you're right, someone should have seen this coming.
There reports stating that 50% of the female soldiers deployed are now expecting a birth in the near future.
The fememists might need to review their stand on seeing women in combat.
Wonder how those other armies handle situtations such as these.
Those armies being the Soviet Union, Israel and North Vietnam in recent history, who had or have women in their arm forces.
Even high ranking female officers have been assualted.
What in hades is going on?

Below is a little more on this article;
To protect the soldiers' privacy, the victim advocacy organizations declined to release details of individual cases and revealed only general trends.

Many of the victims are women of high rank. Several are officers. Most were stationed in Kuwait, a common launching point for troops occupying Iraq.

Among the most disturbing trends, say victim advocates, is a disregard for the women's safety and medical treatment. Women are left in the same units as their accused attackers and are not receiving counseling.

Susan Avila-Smith, a Washington state-based civilian advocate, assisted Danielle, the rape victim who received congressional help to return home. A military intelligence officer who asked that her full name not be used, Danielle was assaulted Nov. 28 while in Kuwait.

She was stationed with her Fort Lewis, Wash., unit at Camp Udairi, about 15 miles from the Iraqi border. She had just finished guard duty at 2:30 a.m. and was stepping into the latrine when she was knocked unconscious, she said.

She recalled waking to a man raping her. He had tied her hands with cord, stuffed her underwear into her mouth and wrapped cord around her head. When she began to fight, he threatened her and then again knocked her unconscious.

Afterwards, she was driven to an aid station, where a rape examination was performed. She received no other treatment for the injuries to her head, back and knees, she says. She was then interviewed for about three hours, she said. Requests to see the chaplain were denied, and she was not given counseling for sexual trauma, she said.

Maj. Shawn Phelps, one of Danielle's commanders, said he could not comment on how her case was handled in Kuwait, but said that since her return to Fort Lewis, she has received counseling.

Semper Fidelis
Ricardo

[leroy8541]

Lets see? Do women belong in front line units with men? DUH!!!

[Monica]

Let's see- obviously these "men" don't have the discipline it takes to act with honor while they are on this deployment. Just because there are females there, doesn't mean they are there for the fun, convenience, etc.. or to be the convenient victims of some jerk's out of hand libido and control issues.

This article has nothing to do with how well a woman can do her job in a combat zone, so asking if they belong on front lines and putting "DUH" as an answer, is a separate subject you are addressing.

[Dvan]

I agree with Monica.

When someones implies these women were raped because they are 'where they do not belong' (ie: a combat situation) you are off-handedly blaming the the raped woman for her rape. Remember the soldier who fragged the officer's tent in Kuwait? Would we suggest those officers brought that attack on themselves by being where they were? Of course not.

When a man is willing to place his life on the line by serving his country in a combat zone, he is seen as honorable; but when a woman has the same desire to serve her country in a combat zone, she is seen as a 'feminist' and a threat? This is the problem ... it's called prejudice, gentlemen.

Since I've been coming to this website, I have encountered instances were women have been referred to and portrayed in a sexualized manner; (see the whole thread referring to so-called revised Woman Marines Uniforms, found somewhere on this forum.) This is not in any way a uniquely 'military' perspective, but in traditionally male occupations, the demeaning portrayal of women has become an often acceptable way to protest womens presence in a once male-dominated area.

Having said this, let me say, I do not personally believe women should serve in combat zones. HOWEVER, that is not the point with these rapes. Congress has said these women, the very ones that were raped, have a duty to serve, and they were serving. They were obeying orders, and they have been attacked, and horribly so, by a fellow countrymen. These rapists need to be called criminals and treated to the full wrath of the UCMJ.

Not all Marines are rapists, but those who are should not have their hideous crimes even slightly defended, by suggesting that the women they attacked, brought this on themselves, by being 'where they didn't belong.'

[Mudwalker]

This is not an example of why females should not hold combat roles. It is an a example of how the leadership in the military has gone down hill. It's an example of how our training standards have declines to keep the numbers up. It's also an example of our enlistment standards being lowered in order to meet the quota. When is it gonna stop?

[G.L.B.]

Service men and women alike have desires and "needs" who's to say that these women didn't put them selves in these positions. Why is it alway's the mens falt. I think it is bullsh!t that femenests "women" are always the victims and they are so innocent. give me a f#@king break. and no.... they do not belong in the combat zone. -sorry to, I am bad at spelling

[leroy8541]

It is not these womens fault. It is the Army's fault for putting them there in the first place. It is a discipline problem, and a very hard problem to deal with. Its called human nature, and most of the soldiers near the front line are barely out of puberty. Hormones are going wild, and the adrenaline rushes that go with being near danger just add to the problem. I never said women are not capable of doing their duty on the front lines. Just putting a bunch of adolescent males and females together in a dangerous envirnment is downright stupid to begin with. Now I have defined "DUH".

[usmc4669]

When you put women in close quarters with Male counterparts this is bound to happen, as in Iraq. No you cannot blame the Army, it goes back to women Lib. Remember they are the ones that pushed this, Remember Womens Rights Activist, the right to become Pilots, Womens on Navy Ships even Subs. I for one say take all of the women out of Iraq now and put the WOMEN RIGHTS ACTIVIST there in place of them
USMC4669

[Osotogary]

Hot topic, in more ways than one.
My first thought was that, if memory serves me correctly, I read that the French Army used to have a policy of bringing "comfort ladies" on their campaigns to take care of the needs of its Army. They were contracted and reported to be well paid and well taken care of during their "period of employment". Now, I have never read where this practice prevented any rapes on the populace.
I've never read where the French Army had women in their ranks, fighting side by side. Maybe there was a reason for that....just as there was a reason for "the comfort ladies".
I have to agree with leroy8541 latest statement. I just wish that it wasn't happening.
Gary(osotogary)

[MillRatUSMC]

There's been thoughts going through my mind like balls in a pinball machine.
One being;
"59,742 women have been or are currently serving in Iraq and Afghanistan".
another being;
"The down sizing of the Army, coming back to haunts us".
Yet another;
"Some pushing to increase the arm services by 40K".
Than;
"From this message 37 female service members reporting being assualted".
Yet still another;
"One third of some units or base are non-deployable".
Well not being too educated, I wanted to find out the meaning of "DUH".
Found out that there's "DUH and DOH".
My nimble brain wants some answers.
But any answers might just be another man's opinion amongs many other opinions.
From the first of over 50K serving in Afghanistan and Iraq, my hometown of East Chicago, Indiana in the 1950's and 60's only had a total population of just 50K or under.
So my brain says; WOW!
About the downsizing, who wants to except the responsibilty for that?
Not many!
IMHO
Now about some wanting to increase the armed services by 40K.
Many from these over deployed (regular and reserve units) will be seeking an out.
Will current recruiting keep up and exceed those getting out?
If it isn't able to meet those requirements.
How will we come by those extra people?
A draft?
If so, who do we draft?
College or High School graduates?
Who do we exempt?
Into this mix we add those one third being "Non-deployable".
Some of those extra people will be required to replace those non-deployable.
So we really haven't gain much.
You can bet the house that there will be screams from those being drafted.
Now the assualting of these females service members, since reading this.
We gather that it not only happening in the Army.
So who responsibile for the safety of these women?
Would self-discipline of male members insure these women's safety?
Than my nimble brain, goes back to the downsizing of the arm services in the 90's.
This might be a reason why so many women are reguired to serve overseas.
For every opinion of why women shouldn't be on the battlefield.
There will be an opposing opinion.
DUH! as stating that something is foolish or needs no explaining.
DOH as referring to something one does that is foolish.
I myself don't use these terms.
So from all these facts, I doubt that I can make an opinion.
So they just bound around in this nimble or numb brain...

Semper Fidelis
Ricardo