Posted July 13, 2008 in The Huffington Post
It has been rumored for some time that the U.S. Army has had to lower its standards to get enough recruits for its expanded war-fighting needs in Iraq and Afghanistan. Now firm evidence has emerged, and it is not pretty.
For instance: The percentage of Army recruits receiving “moral conduct” waivers jumped from 4.6 percent in 2003 to 11.2 percent in 2007. Many of them in this group have criminal backgrounds, yet are still allowed in the military, to carry a gun and engage in what is essentially “police work” in Iraq.
Not surprisingly, trouble often follows them in the service. Their rate of misconduct, at 6%, is almost twice the average.
In 2007, almost 10,000 recruits were granted waivers for past misdemeanors. over 2100 for “serious criminal misconduct” — over four times the 2003 rate – -and almost 1500 for drug or alcohol abuse.
To read more on this article, visit The Huffington Post.
Do I have a story to tell you about what the Army’s accepting these days. Man, I don’t know if I even care to open that can of worms on this blog, but those that know me in “real life” probably already see where I’m heading with this.
Yes, the Army DOES take in more criminals these days. They also are recruiting more women, focusing their efforts on single mothers (and note that in order to join, you must sign over guardianship to someone on the outside since you can’t serve if you have dependents relying on you solely). They’re also offering U.S. citizenship to foreigners of specified nations who serve a minimum of 4 years in the Army. How do I know any of this? Because I met them in Basic Training in 2007.
It’s not a conversation I care to hash out in a lot of detail here, but I did enlist in the Army Reserves in 2007 and was sent to training out east before receiving a medical discharge 5 weeks in. Long story short: I had no business being there and am shocked that they even let me in. Especially considering the fact that I was 100% honest with my recruiter about everything going on at the time, such as my health history, being on Lexapro (an SSRI prescribed for depression and anxiety) for a few months, having just gone through a fairly traumatic breakup AND that my reasons for joining were closely linked with attempts to leave prostitution (and the Midwest) behind. She shrugged and reassured me none of it was a big deal.
Hell, I didn’t even support the war, but like so many others, I was ignorant to what was truly going on outside of the mainstream headlines (that I rarely read). And I believed in supporting the troops.
Joining seemed like a decent idea at the time. Well…at least it appeared to beat the potential alternatives. Going in as an E-3, my MOS would have been 42A (a Human Resource position), and I signed a contract for 8 years with 6 of those years to be served in active duty. Over drinks at a bar with the female recruiter, I was told to expect to be in Iraq within a year of finishing AIT. I was also instructed to lie about much of what I had disclosed to her once at MEPS (the processing center). And I obeyed, stupidly. DO NOT EVER do this! Especially when you have physical limitations that may create a handicap during training, no matter what your recruiter may claim. It’s a pain going through the proper channels to get Army personnel to request that your medical records be faxed by your doctor back home to prove the existence of any conditions, and oftentimes the process takes weeks. (Not that anyone visiting this blog is likely to enlist…)
Even without my full admission on health issues, I’m still surprised they let me in since there were some obvious physical problems that were exposed during preliminary testing (even re-tested for verification), such as issues with hearing loss (which proved to be a real problem during training).
When people warn you that recruiters lie, you don’t know the half of it! I researched as much as possible within the month that elapsed between meeting the recruiter and actually flying out east, yet still managed to be bamboozled. As was just about everyone else I met at Basic, come to find out. Particularly in matters related to pay and sign-on bonuses.
Overall, I have to say that I don’t regret my experience, however dumb it might have been for me to attempt to go that route (as a nonconformist and all), if for no other reason than it offered a glimpse at the demographics of people joining the military. My short stint was pointless by most accounts, but I learned a lot in that short amount of time. Not necessarily the sorts of things my drill sergeants intended for me to learn, but it was educational nevertheless. The joke among friends is that I “audited” basic training, much like one would audit a college course: I got to sit in but received no credit.
So…yes, that was a topic discussed occasionally at Basic: how they are letting in more people with criminal backgrounds. If they had been mostly drug offenders, I doubt many people would have cared, but it was a bit disconcerting for some of my fellow recruits to find out that people with assault charges were being permitted to join. Personally, I was more concerned about the number of single mothers targeted for recruitment, many of whom claimed to have joined to secure medical benefits and insurance for their kids. That strikes me as sad that a mother should have to ship off to war in order to provide necessary resources for her children. *shakes head*
Anyway, that’s about as far as I care to go on this topic today. Perhaps another day. I will say that it has crossed my mind more than a few times that the people I met in training are likely already in Iraq or bound that way within the next few months, as it’s been approximately a year since our BT would have ended. The length of time varies in AIT according to your MOS, with some only scheduled for 4 months of additional training and others looking forward to approximately 15 months for more technical positions. Either way, we were all Iraq-bound and our drill sergeants were very clear about that, so I imagine they will be arriving at some point during the latter half of 2008.
May they remain safe and sure of themselves.
Oh, and btw, no “moral waiver” was needed for my enlistment as I have a clean criminal record, just in case anyone was curious. The above article just happened to stir memories of conversations with fellow recruits on that very topic.
Newsvine
Safiyyah said
The Armed Forces used to take a LOT of criminals and wayward types. About 50 years ago, it was common for a wild boy to join the military and get “straightened out”. Judges used to also “sentence” young men to the military.
The criminal justice system also used to accept a lot of criminals as employees. After all, you “can’t dope fiend a dope fiend”.
Then, I think it was Bill Clinton, who changed the military and ordered all the shady types from joining up.
Now they are changing their minds and going back to it.
Witness the escalation of military guys murdering their wives and girlfriends (also in the military) here in the US.
Ya Allah.
Love and Peace,
Safiyyah
wakemenow said
Yeah, the criminal justice system now is a hard ass about who it allows in its ranks. You can become corrupt after joining, but during preliminary screening job-seekers are increasingly subjected to polygraphs. I’ve asked my professors why they would refuse the experience an ex-con potentially brings to the table, but they usually laughed such ideas off as lunacy. The word is you are ineligible if you’ve ever even once used any of the harder drugs, as minors or otherwise. Strict policy, if you ask me. But it seems to further their apparent goal to maintain a wide divide between law enforcement officials and those we criminalize.
As for the military…it appears mostly born out of desperation. On a sidenote, I seriously doubt they’re nearly as concerned about the backgrounds for the contractors’ employees, thought I haven’t yet come across any discussion on that topic.