You are right, it is wrong and it should be punished. Apparently there are many commanders who do not listen to the problem, do not prosecute. One reason, I am sure, is that such problems would not look good on a commanders record. You know, he/she isn't a good commanding officer if they have this type of problem in the ranks.
I think the very fact that the Pentagon is itself the one citing these stats should show that this is a field issue and that the solution depends on the field commanders.
It is not something tolerated by the military establishment.
I really don't know where you're getting these figures or how it is you're combining them.
All of the links are by the same author, Nancy Gribbs.
Let's see what statistical or numerical data is in her report:
Here the 3000 in the latest assaut figures includes the numbers in Iraq and Afganhistan.... which was up 25% increase in that part of military theatre...but overall, the 3000 represent a 9% increase from the previous report......
Nothing remarkable or incredible about these figures excepting that it may indicate a breakdown of morale as well as morals under conditions of warfare as related to Afganhistan and Iraq.
.
Neither does this figure make a definitive statement where one can more than hypothesize about the increases in Iraq and Afganhistan as it doesn't give other comparable data regarding ^ or v of females deployed to these areas which may also be an influencing factor.
The only definitive is that 3000 represents a 9% increase from previous records.... and this record does not reflect if there are decreases or increases in female numbers in the military.
While it seems impressive.... it is not telling us all that much on which we can base judgements other than that sexual assault does occur.
What is more significant follows later in the article.
This statement is so non specific that it has no merit to compare more than what it does...... female veterans to civilians.
It says nothing about who 'the entire universe of female veterans' is composed of ......
Here rape and assault are coupled together as though they are the same although even our discussion supports the confusion of these semantics where terms used legally can have both specific meaning and yet be used interchangeably which modifies perception.
Here the Pentagon is not giving the figures for how many women serve in the military and the only figure we have of 3000 sexual assaults does not tell us what percentage of these reported events comprise the females in the military.
However, we may assume that given both of these figures by the Pentagon, sexual assauts of females in the military is sufficiently significant to warrant some change to reduce its occurrance.
This does not tell us how many cases are investigated, but does suggest that either the investigations are weak in producing evidence and the prosecution is weak or suggest a strong reluctance to prosecute and deal aggressively with this problem.
Adding to this the favorable discharge status given those who are convicted implys some intention to cover up, protect from exposure, or otherwise excuse under the cover of 'military honor' those who commit sex crimes.
It leaves us with sexist assumptions but doesn't explore or define why this is so or excusable.
Vague statements which, with additional information may or may not be as sensational as it appears on the surface:
Consider, how is 'homeless' defined... a woman shacking up with a man who has no separate place of abode or who returns to live with parents, family, or friends for a time....????
And what is the validity of these 'reports' or the 'evidence'.
With little doubt I entertain the significance is there but to how great or small relative to the impression... is for the thinker to decide for himself.
Seems like I remember reading something about a king before going to war, considers the strength of the enemy against which his men must fight.... and wisely decides to count the cost whether he can succeed or else considers a peaceful settlement to conflict.
If we haven't enough men to fight then how is 15%
of those forces which are female going to enhance the fighting resolve of the military when it adds sexual tension to the mix and interferes with morale and discipline within the ranks.
Though many females may disagree, I don't think the military is a place for women.
Certainly not for more than supportive arrangements like secretarial, or nursing..... or, if the threat is severe enough.... a milita trained to defend within our borders to defend and protect in the event of a catatrophic incident or invasion.
Even then, I believe it goes against the nature of womanhood.
Yes I'm female and sexist as in recognizing genders with distinct differences which give both genders advantage when distinctions are observed, appreciated for what they are and maximized in respect for self and others.
Sexual crimes certainly has nothing to do with honor, nor respect and has no place in society or the military.
It is not the figures in the article that presents a problem in your reply. Rather it is your poor understanding of percentages and math.
Here is a simple example.
Let's take the lower figure of 80% not reporting a rape or assault. Them means out of every 100 women assaulted or raped 80 of them do not report the incident and that 20 do report it. This gives us a combined total of 100%.
I do not know where you get the 30% you quote. The number 30 never appears in the article. I read the article and then I searched the article and it isn't there.
You appear to be adding the two percentages together, one of which does not appear in the article, and that is an error. You cannot have more than 100% of anything. If you do you have made a mistake in your math.
But you should be able to find this... "When you look at the entire universe of female veterans, close to a third say they were victims of rape or assault while they were serving.."
If 90% of assaults are not reported then for every one that is reported nine are not.
30% X 9 = 270%
Under those assumptions then for every 30 that are reported 270 are not.
So the total is 30 reported plus 270 not reported = 300
But you can not have 300% of 100% being assaulted.
So the range is 100% are assaulted more than once (3times)
Or some smaller number are assaulted many times (10, 20 , 40, 100 times?)