Air Force Gen. John Hyten, head of the U.S. Strategic Command (STRATCOM), conceded this uncomfortable reality during a July 30 hearing considering his nomination to become Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.  In addition to questions about accusations against Hyten himself, addressed separately, Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) member Tammy Duckworth (D-IL) asked the nominee about sexual assault awareness programs. [1]

Gen. Hyten said he had long supported Air Force programs like “Respect” and “Green Dot.”  Then he added, with unusual candor, “But the numbers don’t change.  It is a vexing problem, Senator. . . We have tried so many things in the military; I’ve been part of the leadership on all of those things, but the numbers say they are not working.” (emphasis added)

Annual reports from the Pentagon's Sexual Assault Prevention & Response Office (SAPRO) confirm what Gen. Hyten said. [2]  Trend lines in this graph, published in the SAPRO’s most recent report, show that numbers of actual sexual assault cases (not estimates) are climbing at a steep rate.  Click on the link for details:

Figure 1: Reports of Sexual Assault Made to the Department of Defense, FY07 – FY18

Cases that are tracked on the graph are more than data points; they represent thousands of real-life, soul-wrenching incidents of sexual abuse:

Figure 1 indicates that completed cases of sexual assaults, including non-service members, climbed from 6,769 in FY 2017 to 7,623 in FY 2018 – up 13% in one year and a 168% increase since the 2,846 cases reported in FY 2007.
 
Figure 2: Estimated Prevalence and Actual Reporting Rates for Service Members, 2004-2018

The lower part of Figure 2, which tracks completed cases filed by service members-only, shows that total numbers rose from 5,277 in FY 2017 to 6,053 in FY 2018 – a 15% hike in one year and a 146% increase since the 2,454 service-member cases reported in FY 2007. [3]

It is a disgrace that in a single year (FY 2018), over 6,000 military men and women found it necessary to report sexual assaults through a confidential system (Restricted) or on the public record as part of legal action (Unrestricted).

For decades, feminist social engineers, lawmakers, and high-level Pentagon officials promised that close combat assignments for women would reduce rates of sexual assaults.  On the contrary, according to Defense Department data, the opposite has happened.

LGBT advocates also have insisted that their agenda is working well, but Figure 3 below, tracking annual percentages of sexual assaults on military men, shows a disturbing trend.  Social policies that have ignored or tried to redefine human sexuality are weakening discipline, trust, and the careers of many senior leaders.

Everyone should be concerned about these problems, while keeping in mind the advice of President Ronald Reagan: Before we do more of what we are doing, perhaps we should find out if what we are doing is part of the problem.

Online Survey Estimates Cannot Disguise Reality

The situation calls for an honest, top-to-bottom reassessment of what has gone wrong and what must be done to restore the cultural strength of our military.  A good place to start is the latest SAPRO report, but without the diversionary smokescreens.

Pentagon officials have found a way to spin escalating annual numbers of sexual assaults as “good news,” indicating that more victims (actually, accusers until a crime has been proven) are stepping forward to file formal complaints.  Claims such as this rely on an online poll called the “Workplace and Gender Relations Survey of Active-Duty Personnel (WGRA).

Every two years, RAND and other contractors for SAPRO have conducted the WGRA survey to measure the “prevalence” of sexual assaults with anonymous reports of “under-reported” crimes.  As shown in the upper half of Figure 2, survey-generated “virtual numbers” are much higher than completed cases.  They often generate sensational headlines when reporters fail to draw distinctions between actual numbers and online survey estimates. [4]

For example, news headlines in May 2019 reported that in FY 2018, 20,500 sexual assaults occurred among active-duty personnel – a 38% increase from the 14,900 survey reports for FY 2016.  Officials tried to soften the news by noting that the latest number was only slightly higher than 20,300 estimated in FY 2014, but the point didn’t matter.  As seen on Figure 2, “virtual” numbers float up and down every two years because they are not tied to actual cases. [5]

When WGRA survey estimates go up, DoD officials praise their own efforts because more victims are coming forward.  When the “virtual” reports go down, the same officials take credit for lower numbers.  This self-serving “heads we win, tails we don’t lose” ploy diverts attention from escalating numbers of actual cases and Pentagon policies that may be adding fuel to the fire.

The only people benefiting from WGRA surveys are the mostly civilian academic “experts” who receive generous subsidies to produce them.  Their primary goal seems to be job security and more government contracts, not sound policies that will reduce problems of sexual misconduct in the military instead of aggravating them.

Sexual Assaults: #MilitaryMenToo

Today’s SAPRO reports have thoroughly discredited unrealistic predictions about sexual misconduct that ideologues repeatedly have made since the early 1990s.  These include disingenuous promises that the Obama Administration made to Congress in 2010 when pressing for repeal of Section 654, Title 10, the 1993 law regarding gays in the military.

Despite vehement denials to members of Congress, repeal of the law mislabeled “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” quickly led to “LGBT Law,” meaning new rules allowing same-sex marriages, benefits, and constant challenges to religious liberty in the military.  As CMR predicted five years earlier, in 2015 the Obama Administration threw previous assurances out the window and began an incremental process of accommodating transgenders in the military.

Defense Department SAPRO reports have revealed steep increases in the rates of sexual assaults on men as well as women.  Figure 3 displays information found in “Statistical Data” appended to annual Defense Department SAPRO reports since FY 2007.  Click on the link for details:


Figure 3: Annual SAPRO Reports: Percentage of Sexual Assaults on Males

This graph, prepared by CMR, shows that sexual assaults on military men, most often by other males, have increased from 6% in FY 2007 to 18% of unrestricted (public) reports and 20% of restricted (confidential) reports in FY 2018.  The combined number of men filing reports in both categories (905 and 366, respectively) totaled 1,271 cases in FY 2018.  As the trend line shows, male-on-male sexual assaults have increased by 200% since FY 2007.

It is not clear why this is happening, but advocates keep claiming that repeal of the 1993 law has been a complete success.  They view all consequences from the perspective of sexual minorities, who are generally satisfied with the benefits of LGBT Law.  There is no evidence, however, that changes such as this have strengthened morale and military readiness in any way.

Throwing Money at the Problem Hasn’t Helped

The American military has spared no expense in trying to reduce rates of sexual assault.  According to USA Today, spending on the Defense Department’s Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office has quadrupled since 2008.  Full time SAPRO employees have more than doubled (from 7 to 15) and budgets have increased almost five-fold from $5 million in 2008 to $23 million in 2018. [6]

SAPRO reports have ballooned in size from 12 pages in calendar year (CY) 2004 to a whopping 1,066 pages in FY 2018.  The most recent report includes nine Appendices, four military service reports, and a 353-page Annex publishing WGRA survey results. [7]

Pentagon bureaucrats and “expert” consultants justify their contracts and grants by promoting every tool in the social engineers’ toolbox, starting with a small army of highly paid Sexual Assault Response Coordinators (SARCs), Special Victims’ Counsel (SVC), and Victims’ Legal Counsel (VLC) located on almost every military base.

The number of SARCs alone – 45,000 – is more than double the number of recruiters in the U.S. Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force combined. [8]

The SARCs and professional sexual assault consultants keep promoting a long list of remedies and tactics, including but not limited to counsellors for accusers (only recently for persons accused), multiple task forces and committees to organize constant “sexual assault awareness” programs and conferences for personnel of all ranks, mandatory training covering topics such as unconscious bias, zero tolerance, bystander intervention, anti-retaliation, sex communication, and kissing consent protocols, plus fleet- and service-wide stand-downs, 360 degree reviews of commanders, reprimands or courts martial for offenders, Safe Hotlines, Helplines, Violence Resource Centers, male working groups, edgy sex encounter role-playing performances, teal beribboned Sexual Assault Awareness Month media events, and male ROTC cadets trying to walk in women’s red high-heeled shoes. [9]

Some of these activities are harmless or worthwhile, but overall expenditures and activities have not been effective in producing results.

When electrical, mechanical, or aeronautical engineers create structures that catastrophically fail, they stop to figure out what went wrong before revising designs to fix the problem.  A prime example occurred in 1967, early in NASA’s famous Apollo program.  Engineers reassessed the use of 100% oxygen in the Apollo 1 space capsule’s atmosphere after an electrical spark ignited a fire, killing three astronauts. [10]

In contrast, social engineers never re-examine their own flawed assumptions about human sexuality.  Young male and female personnel are deployed in highly combustible “100% oxygen” environments with “zero tolerance” of sparks.  This makes no sense.

Pentagon leaders should reassess naïve theories about human sexuality and gender equality to figure out why and how ill-advised social experiments are tearing America’s military apart.

Predictions of Gender Equality Proven Wrong

Pentagon officials have devoted countless hours to wheel-spinning exercises purporting to examine every aspect of the sexual assault problem, except for one: the possibility that misguided policies rooted in false assumptions and ideology are increasing the numbers of sexual assaults, not decreasing them as promised.

For decades, social engineers have promised that assignments for women in formerly all-male communities, such as tactical aviation, the infantry, and submarines, would reduce rates of sexual harassment and assault.

This was the argument made in the aftermath of the Navy’s Tailhook scandal in 1991.  Male and female naval aviators attending the Tailhook Association convention in Las Vegas participated in alcohol-fueled hospitality suite parties celebrating the end of the Persian Gulf War.  Two women (not hundreds, as reported) were sexually assaulted.

Rep. Patricia Schroeder (D-CO) and other congresswomen demanded that heads roll, so Navy investigators began zealous “witch-hook” prosecutions that ruined the careers of dozens of male aviators – including one officer who wasn’t even there. [11]

Pressing their advantage, feminists in Congress claimed that female pilots flying combatant aircraft would increase respect for women, and that gender-integration would transform the “unruly culture” of the male-dominated aviation community, thereby reducing sexual assaults.

Congress rushed to open tactical aviation to female pilots, simultaneously establishing the 1992 Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women to study and report on the consequences of women serving in combat units in all branches and communities of the military.

Civilian experts testifying before the commission provided abundant evidence of gender-related disparities affecting physical strength, endurance, and rates of injury.  Military personnel, who had been given full permission to be candid, explained the likely consequences if women were assigned to combat arms units in all service branches, including the infantry.

Commissioners also debated a cultural question: If military policies conveyed the message that violence against women was acceptable – provided it happens at the hands of the enemy – would that be a step forward for civilization or a step backward?  [12]

The commission’s debate followed testimony from instructors from the Survival, Evasion, Resistance & Escape (SERE) program, an intense Air Force course that trains potential prisoners of war.  The instructors told the Commission that gender integration in the combat arms could succeed, but only if the nation became “desensitized” to the reality of combat abuse and violence against women. [13]

That disturbing argument proved too much for most commissioners. “Good men,” said commissioner Kate O’Beirne, “protect and defend women.”  Perhaps that principle should be revisited today.  Are practices that encourage men to accept violence against women in combat causing cultural confusion and dissonance, which aggravates problems of sexual harassment?

Whether intended or not, when male trainees are required to physically hit female colleagues in morning combatives courses, followed by afternoon “sensitivity” classes, cultural confusion could be weakening respect for women instead of strengthening it.

“Sandra Sidi, a civilian who served in Iraq for a year supporting the Multi-National Force Public Affairs Office, addressed this issue in a lengthy article for the Atlantic:

“Sometimes I wonder if it’s the nature of warfare itself that is to blame for the persistence of sexual abuse in the military. We ask men to do violence in service to the state, to be paragons of hypermasculinity. Can we simultaneously ask them to change the way they perform masculinity toward women? Can we ask them to make safe spaces for women in war?” [14] (emphasis added)

The Presidential Commission’s final report noted the cultural issue along with detailed findings reflecting extensive testimony and base visits nationwide.  But Congress ignored the Commission’s findings and concerns.

In fact, the Senate has not had an open hearing on women in combat since 1991, and the last full committee hearing on the subject occurred in the House in 1979, 40 years ago.

Social Justice Warriors vs. Men

Social experiments involving women have continued to create cultural dissonance and social consequences that belie disingenuous promises made since the 1990s.

In 1996, for example, Law Professor Madeline Morris, a Special Consultant to the Secretary of the Army during the Clinton Administration, published a Duke Law Journal article calling for an “ungendered” military.  Prof. Morris claimed that “masculinist attitudes,” “hypermasculinity,” and “rape proclivities” could be reduced if military trainers instilled an “incest taboo” to deter sexual entanglements. [15]  Really?

In January 2013, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta announced that minimally qualified women would be involuntarily assigned to combat arms units such as Marine and Army infantry, armor, artillery, Special Operations Forces and Navy SEALs.  Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey joined Panetta in telling Pentagon reporters that women would get more respect and experience fewer assaults if they served in the combat arms. [16]

Never mind that a Women’s Health Issues Journal study, co-authored by a researcher with the Naval Health Research Center (NHRC) in San Diego, found that military women tracked since 2001 were at greatest risk of assault when serving in or near close combat units. [17]

Advocates have long claimed that treating women like men in the infantry would advance women’s careers.  Defense Department reports, however, consistently have shown for decades that women are promoted at rates equal to or faster than men.  A RAND survey of 30,000 Army women in 2014 found that 92% had no desire to join units where they would be at a severe disadvantage. [18]

There is no justification for the Department of Defense to continue programs that harm women in many ways, including elevated risks of sexual assault and rates of debilitating injury far greater than those of men.  It is even worse to withhold from female recruits and servicewomen information they need to know about disproportionate risks they will face, especially in or near combat zones.

Sea Service Experiments with Human Sexuality

Because social engineers never learn, bad ideas keep coming.

The Naval Institute’s journal Proceedings recently published an op-ed by USCG Lt. Joseph R. Trump, who suggested that the Coast Guard could solve its shortage of ship berthing spaces for women by “degenderizing” itself with mixed-gender berthing arrangements like those used in the Norwegian Navy. [19]

“Strong leadership,” wrote Lt. Trump, “can establish a positive command culture where degenderization can reduce or eradicate sexual harassment and assault, as it will advance gender equality and desexualize our shipmates.”

Normal young men and women sharing bunks onboard ships . . . What could go wrong?  If the Coast Guard is having trouble maintaining separate-gender berthing, perhaps they should forget the gender quotas and allow women to serve without being treated like men.

As CMR reported in a previous article, Navy Vice Adm. Robert Burke, recently promoted to Vice Chief of Naval Operations, signed a dress code policy statement that extends special privileges to transgender personnel wishing to “express themselves off-duty in their preferred gender” – presumably by cross-dressing in clothing associated with the opposite sex. [20]

This interpretation – call it the “Burke Rule” – defies the Trump/Mattis transgender policy, which clearly states that service members are expected “to adhere to all applicable standards, including the standards associated with their biological sex.” [21]

Allowing transgender personnel to “live socially” in their “preferred gender” when off-duty and not in uniform invites similar behavior by others who wish to express their sexuality while deployed on Navy ships.  Witness 24-year-old Yeoman 3^rd Class Joshua Kelley, who identifies as a gay drag queen.

The Navy allowed Yeoman Kelley, dressed as his alter-ego “Harpy Daniels,” to perform a campy strip dance on the carrier USS Ronald Reagan.  [22]  Such behavior invites demands for “gender equality” in other forms of sexual expressions aboard Navy ships.

Under the Burke Rule, for example, off-duty female sailors could demand the “right” to express their sexuality with pole dances while off-duty on ships.  Such behavior would be tame in comparison to the gross indiscipline that occurred on the USS Florida, the second submarine to integrate female sailors.

Military.com and several other news outlets reported that sexual acts were recorded on a “list” (mis-headlined a “rape list”), which rated with 1- 4 stars sexual performances of female sailors aboard the submarine.  According to the investigative report, “The list describes aggressive sexual activity, but does not reference non-consensual acts.” (emphasis added) Even without forced sexual activity or worse, military discipline aboard the Florida had broken down. [23]

In July, CNN reported that Rear Adm. Collin Green, Commander of Naval Special Warfare Command (NSW) sent a blistering letter to the force, in boldface: “We Have a Problem.”  The letter came shortly after the entire SEAL Team 7 Foxtrot Platoon was sent home from Iraq following allegations of drinking and sexual assault during their down time.

According to the New York Times, a senior enlisted platoon member had allegedly raped a female service member assigned to the SEAL platoon.  In addition, “when commanders began investigating the allegations, the entire platoon invoked their right to remain silent under the Fifth Amendment. . .  At that point, commanders decided to send the whole platoon home, including the lieutenant in command.” [24]

Allegations are under investigation and not confirmed, but Adm. Green has fired the entire leadership team of SEAL Team 7 over a “breakdown of good order and discipline.” [25]

Consensual Misconduct Invites Sex Scandals

Consequences of unwise social experiments occur at both ends of a spectrum with harassment or rape are on one end and consensual misconduct or divisive romantic relationships on the other.  Both types of misconduct weaken discipline and sometimes lead to abuse and public scandals that seem to occur in cycles.

For example, in the late 1990s, a rash of sex scandals at Aberdeen Proving Ground and other Army bases involved drill instructors (DIs) and female recruits.  Some DIs were convicted of forcible rape, but others took advantage of the young women by engaging in sexual behavior that was consensual but exploitive and completely wrong.

Drill instructor “consexploitation” sparked nationwide controversy and major studies, starting with the Kassebaum-Baker Commission, which were critical of co-ed basic training but supportive of separate-gender basic training in the Marine Corps. [26]

Marine General Robert Neller and his successor as Commandant, General David Berger, seem to have forgotten this history.  During the past year General Neller dropped his previous opposition and laid the groundwork for capitulation on the co-ed basic training issue, even though separate-gender boot camp had been recognized as superior in the process of transforming civilians into Marines. [27]

In March 2004, worldwide media published disturbing photographs of indecent, decadent behavior in the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.  Time-stamped photos showed that the male and female soldiers involved had debased themselves before they abused the prisoners in an “animal house” atmosphere that shocked the world and embarrassed the Army.

In 2005 a less publicized scandal occurred at Camp Bucca, a prison camp in Iraq.  Drinking and mud-wrestling parties involving two gender-mixed Military Police (MP) battalions and civilian contractors distracted attention from two prisoner revolts and an underground tunnel escape that almost succeeded.

In 2017, the Marine Corps was rocked by a sensational scandal involving nude pictures of military women circulated on a secretive website called Marines United.  Some of the photos initially had been shared in private, but most were taken surreptitiously, demeaning the targets and women everywhere.  [28]

These scandals and many more began with consensual misconduct that weakened discipline and sometimes led to abuse of others and demoralizing public scandals.

Sex on the Consensual Side

On August 21, Task & Purpose reported that five senior leaders had been “canned” in the past month. [29]  Almost every week, military media report on another commanding officer or senior non-commissioned officer who has been fired for “lack of confidence.”  Reasons for the dismissals are not always clear, but explanations often included the phrase “consensual, but inappropriate, personal relationship.”

For several years, before military news reports stopped keeping track, firings of Navy ship COs, XOs and other senior leaders occurred at the rate of approximately two per month, most often for reasons of sexual misconduct, both voluntary and involuntary.

In a Wall Street Journal op-ed, author Heather MacDonald highlighted an issue considered “too taboo to mention” – the folly of policy makers who pretend that normal men and women are perfect or perfectible in mixed-gender military units.

When eros is introduced into combat units, she wrote, consensual misconduct often is followed by scandal in war zones – the worst possible place for distractions and emotional turbulence to occur.  MacDonald phrased it bluntly:

“Putting young, hormonally charged men and women into stressful close quarters for extended periods guarantees sexual liaisons, rivalries and breakups, all of which undermine the bonding essential to a unified fighting force.”

The harm done by naïve policies is compounded because subordinate commanders are reluctant to report bad news that could reflect badly on their own careers.

In a recent discussion, former Secretary of Defense James Mattis acknowledged the issue of romantic entanglements in small fighting teams that often are pushed to the brink of sanity in combat.  “It is not fair to say to the young sergeant or lieutenant, ‘You’ve got young people falling in love in your unit, sort it out.’”  Mattis added, “[It] is society’s problem,” and “respect for their sexuality should be part of that.” [30]

Secretary Mattis is right about unfair burdens that political correctness places on the backs of junior officers, but is it possible for “society” to neutralize or control the power of human sexuality?  The dismal record of failure reported in annual Defense Department reports suggests that “society” cannot.

The military’s mission is to defend America, not to engage in social experiments with human emotions and failings related to sexuality.  Heather MacDonald reached an unequivocal conclusion:

“The Obama-era policy of integrating women into ground combat units is a misguided social experiment that threatens military readiness and wastes resources in the service of a political agenda. The next defense secretary should end it.” [31]

Indeed, Secretary of Defense Mark Esper should do just that.

President Trump Should Reconsider and Revoke Flawed Policies

We need women in our military, and no one questions their courage in defending America.  Victims of sexual assault are not to blame for violence done to them.

Policy makers should be held accountable, however, when they persistently fail to recognize biological differences between men and women and the inherent power of human sexuality.  Sexual misconduct, whether consensual or by force, eviscerates morale and weakens readiness.

The Pentagon can continue the insanity by doing the same thing over and over, expecting different results, or it can change the paradigm, putting mission effectiveness first.  To advance that goal, President Trump and Secretary of Defense Esper should take fearless steps in the right direction:

• Announce and reaffirm in regulation military personnel policies that assign priority to mission readiness and combat lethality, not political correctness or social engineering.

• Appoint or promote only military and civilian officials who strongly support the same priorities.

• Direct Defense Department and military officials to release, review, and honor the request of former Marine Commandant General Joseph Dunford for exceptions to women-in-combat mandates, which General Dunford backed with three years of scientific research and tests in the field.

• Give to commanders at all levels clear permission to be candid in expressing opinions about the consequences of problematic policies that detract from readiness, morale, and discipline, provided they have a rationale.

• Order responsible Pentagon authorities to compile and report on gender-specific information relevant to the question of whether combat arms units that were all-male prior to April 2013 should be restored to that status, without career penalties for individuals.  Factors to be tracked should include injury rates, deployability, lost time, recruiting propensity, retention, and actual reports of sexual misconduct, both voluntary and involuntary.

• Cancel the Burke Rule permitting public sexual expression while off-duty, and reinforce directives implementing the Trump/Mattis policy regarding persons who identify as transgender in the military.

• Strengthen the long-standing principle that personal conduct regulations in the military apply 24/7, on- and off-base, on- and off-duty, for as long as a person remains in service, and discourage obvious moral hazards associated with alcohol, pornography, drugs, etc.

• Direct the Sexual Assault Prevention & Response Office to discontinue bi-annual WGRA “prevalence” surveys and other time-wasting activities that have been proven ineffective.

• Also direct the SAPRO to produce annual reports with more clarity on tangible issues of sexual misconduct in the military, to include actual cases of sexual assault on men as well as women, numbers of unsubstantiated allegations, summaries of cases involving voluntary misconduct, and other consequences of gender integration in all military communities, including submarines and the combat arms.

• Restore commonsense policies that respect human sexuality and encourage discipline rather than indiscipline; e.g. Expectations that personnel avoid the appearance of impropriety in professional relationships, that private facilities and berthing areas should remain gender-specific, and drill instructors should not be alone with prospective recruits.

• Retain separate-gender Marine boot camp and consider reinstating the same separation in other basic training programs.

Conclusion

Donald Rumsfeld, during his farewell address after mobilizing thousands of troops in major operations in the Middle East following 9/11, said that the single worst day of his nearly six years as Secretary of Defense occurred when he learned of the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse in Iraq. [32]

The trend lines and realities reported in this analysis indicate that we have reached a tipping point.  Doing nothing but more of the same failed tactics increases risks of catastrophic scandal that could weaken the administration as well as the strongest military in the world.

Ultimately, lives could be lost while time and effort are diverted to endless controversies caused by capitulation to social justice warriors and gender diversity theorists who have lost touch with reality.

For decades, Congress has shown near-zero interest in public hearings and oversight that asks the right questions.  Instead, many members keep demanding gender diversity quotas in the combat arms, while avoiding responsibility for problems resulting from these demands.

Under Article II of the U.S. Constitution, the Commander-in-Chief has the power to establish sound policies in our military, and to revoke policies that detract from paramount goals.  This administration may have the final chance to move away from illusions and ideology that are weakening military readiness and putting our volunteer men and women at greater risk.

* * * * * *

The Center for Military Readiness is an independent public policy organization that specializes in military/social issues.  More information is available at www.cmrlink.org.

Endnotes: