WASHINGTON (AP) - The Pentagon's inspector general says a series of commanders at the Air Force Academy failed to recognize and deal with reports of sexual assaults against female cadets on campus, officials said Tuesday.

"We conclude that the overall root cause of the sexual assault problems at the Air Force Academy was the 'failure of successive chains of command over the past 10 years to acknowledge the severity of the problem,'" Inspector General Joseph E. Schmitz wrote in a Dec. 3 memo to Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, quoting his own report.

"Consequently, they failed to initiate and monitor adequate corrective measures to change the culture until recently," Schmitz wrote.

Last year, nearly 150 women came forward with accusations that they had been sexually assaulted by fellow cadets between 1993 and 2003. Many alleged they were punished, ignored or ostracized by commanders for speaking out.

Schmitz's full report was not released. A summary blamed - but didn't name - eight Air Force officials for their roles in the program that oversaw sexual-assault reporting at the academy.

In a press conference, David Chu, undersecretary of defense for personnel and readiness, said the Pentagon would soon implement a new military-wide policy protecting the confidentiality of people who report being sexually assaulted.

Outside investigations concluded the culture of the academy created conditions that contributed to the problem. That included lingering resistance to having female cadets at all: Last year, a survey of cadets found 22 percent did not believe women belonged at the academy, more than a quarter of a century after they were first admitted.

Schmitz's report said academy leaders should have been better role models and should have kept a closer watch on their commands.

The Air Force also released a second report, from its own inspector general, finding that formal investigations of sexual assault at the academy were generally handled properly.

Gen. Michael "Buzz" Moseley, the Air Force's vice chief of staff, noted that all senior leaders at the academy had been replaced since the allegations came to light.

In May, a Pentagon task force found that victims of rape and other forms of sexual assault in the military have too often suffered additionally from a lack of support from commanders, criminal investigators and doctors.

The report, ordered in February by Rumsfeld after a number of sexual assaults against soldiers in the Iraqi theater came to light, described inconsistencies throughout the military in the treatment and investigation of such assaults.

No, blame political correctness. Put young men and women together in close quarters, whether in coed dormitories or the military -- and you will get trouble. Particularly girls who get drunk and still expect to be treated as a lady.

This happened because a group of young men and/or women couldn't follow orders and a code of conduct. If they can't live up to that code of conduct, then they have no place in our military, especially as officers.

Trying to blame the environment (being in close quarters), circumstances (alcohol involved), whatever - that's the easy way out, and one that most liberals take. I'm not saying your a liberal - I think your probably as upset as any of us are, and trying to find an excuse. The fact is, there is no excuse for their conduct.

It doesn't matter if it's young men and women or if they are together. They had orders and a code of conduct to follow. If they can't follow those now, I can't trust them to follow, uphold, and especially give orders just a few years down the road when they graduate, when they may have the lives of others in their hands.

The cadets are at their prime, and they are so isolated from normal social life that this is inevitable.

No, it's not "inevitable". What should be expected of the cadets there, is that they follow orders and the code of conduct.

There are plenty of men and women who have graduated from the Air Force Academy who did not engage in these kinds of activities, and who were "isolated" from a "normal social life". Saying that it's "inevitable" that cadets will break down and disobey orders and flush the code of conduct down the toilet when "isolated from normal social life" insults those who did follow orders and did follow the code of conduct. It insults their accomplishments, their service, and their sacrifices.

I just got back from the Junior Level Senior's BINGO Tournament, so forgive me if I'm coming in and poking my nose in at the end. But, I just had to defend Mr. Rogers, not that he needs any defending, mind you...

Bite me, groundpounder!

I may be mistaken, but I believe Mr. Rogers is a fighter pilot. But I could be wrong. Maybe I'm mistaking him for one of my old squadron buddies. That happens when one starts to get senile, you know. Rather condescending comment though, don't you think? I suppose not. You said it.

If we did not maintain air superiority over Iraq, your casual grunt gripes would be afforded some respect.

Huh?

But we do, so why are you groundpounders blaming airmen for your faults?

Sorry. I thought this was a discussion of the sexual harassment of Amazons in the military by Neanderthals, not groundpounders vs flyers...

Airmen have died over Iraqi skies for almost a decade before you groundpounders even got invited into the fight.

"Groundpounders" (I'll try not to use the word dismissively) have died in every war, as well as airmen.

Maybe I've missed something, but I can't recall any airmen dying over Iraq from Desert Storm to Iraqi Freedom. I can't remember anybody being "invited" into the fight, either. It seems most were "ordered". It was dangerous business to be sure. But I don't recall any shootdowns. Did I miss something?

Don't diss your superiors.

With an attitude like that, it's little wonder you are getting dissed by the gallant Mr Rogers.

...Excuse me. I think I just heard "second call" for the third ladder of our shuffleboard tournament. I must go now. I'll see you later if I can manage to get out of bed tomorrow the morning....

Lord have mercy on me, but you make a lot of valid points!
I guess all I am saying is that women should be able to prove their worth, same as men. If they measure up, great! If not, so be it. But they should not be treated as second class citizens or frowned upon as being "weak" simply because they are women. I have read every post up to now and have learned a lot. I appreciate every opinion. But may I ask you your honest opinion? Don't you think that these men that harrasss the women cadets do so because they feel a bit threatened? I'm just curious as to what your thoughts on this are, from a male perspective. Thanks!

>
There is no evidence that their presence wins wars more effectively then if they were not there.

Much the same can be said of, say, Texans. Would you therefore want to keep Texans out of combat? And yes, I know Audie Murphy was a Texan, but heros are a military oddity who almost never make any difference in the outcome of the war.
>

Probably a legitimate question, but one tests hypotheses only after hypotheses are offered. No one ever suggested prohibiting Texans from combat positions would win wars more effectively.

On a battlefield women eat about the same amount of food but achieve a bayonet thrust force in foot pounds a great deal less than a man. It's clearly not an efficient concept, for infantry, and I suspect they are still prohibited from those positions.

Similar physical strength realities no doubt exist for loading ordinance on airplanes or repairing ship engines.

Given that the positions in question are officer positions, then one is faced with a woman in command of, perhaps, LODEO people who load bombs on airplanes -- but she is incapable of doing the same. Puts her in a difficult role as "leader". There will never be a lead by example possibility in that instance.

Much of this came about because women were assigned Human Resource jobs or various admin jobs and they did them well as officers. But then they found it hard to get promoted above a given level because their competition had combat experience.

This policy evolved to permit promotions. Not to win wars. Bad precedent.

No I don't think they feel threatened I think they resent the standards being lowered for the women and the intrusiveness of their presence. If anything they feel superior. I guess it's sorta like a woman trying to play pro football with the men or for that matter any sport ... the Olympics you feel sorry for them but you know the best of their best is only marginal.

Nineteen year old guys have the hormones going wild and the girls are trying to take advantage of it and most likely doing it. Hey why is it that men have to accept them, draw them into they're social circle women don't bring the men into their social circles. The ladies might not be able to jump thru the hoop but can get the guys to do all day long.

In their traditional rolls they are fantastic. The medical and administrative, logistics, communications but they just ain't gonna be no pro tightend.

Bite me, groundpounder!

As Gritty points out (and you should have suspected from my post), I come from a fighter background - some 2500 hours worth. I'm now at the 21 year mark in my career. I don't dump on groundpounders, 'tho - spent 2 years as an ALO and have great respect for what the Army brings to the fight.

If we did not maintain air superiority over Iraq, your casual grunt gripes would be afforded some respect. But we do, so why are you groundpounders blaming airmen for your faults?

HUH? Where did I blame an airman for anything? If this is your idea of logic, you discredit all your arguements.

Airmen have died over Iraqi skies for almost a decade before you groundpounders even got invited into the fight.

I spent a lot of time over Iraq, and have been shot at - but I don't remember 10 years of us losing folks slying over Iraq. Must have happened on the other shift...

Don't diss your superiors.

I pray you aren't in the USAF. Doesn't sound like it - haven't met that many truly stupid airmen, and you have the attitude of a military wanna-be.

Gritty - thanks for the support.

Nineteen year old guys have the hormones going wild and the girls are trying to take advantage of it and most likely doing it.

Not just you sandviper, this is directed at anybody who thinks that nineteen year olds shouldn't be held accountable for their actions, because of "hormones" and "girls". I'm sure some of you will report me to the mods, go right ahead, but if you read through this, you'll see it's not a personal attack.

What this is, is me teaching you that there are nineteen year olds in this world that you can be proud of, that you don't have to make excuses for.

These nineteen year olds take responsibility for their own actions, they make this country great, and they continue to give me hope that today's youth is not totally lost.

Unlike the nineteen year old cadets, these nineteen year olds follow orders in much more trying circumstances than Colorado Springs, Colorado. Nineteen year olds who could both give and follow life-and-death orders, and who believed that words like "Honor" mean more than something on a poster they pass on their way to class.

Unfortunately, unlike the scumbugs many of you keep making excuses for, these nineteen year olds will forever be nineteen year olds.

Marine Lance Cpl. Nathan R. Wood

Marine Lance Cpl. Nicholas D. Larson

Marine Lance Cpl. Justin D. McLeese

Marine Pfc. Oscar A. Martinez Pfc. Oscar A. Martinez, 19, joined the Marine Corps last year, shortly before graduating from North Lauderdale High School, said his sister, Morena Martinez. He was a member of the I Marine Expeditionary Force based out of Camp Pendleton, Calif.
“Ever since he was little he dreamt of being a Marine,”
His sister said the Marine Corps first refused to accept him unless he lost weight. He weighed 210 pounds at the time, but began running around his block wearing garbage bags and sweat pants to sweat off the weight, his sister said. He reported for duty in December.
“When I asked him why he joined the Marines, he said, ‘If I’m going to do something, I’m going to be the best,”’ Morena Martinez said.

Marine Lance Cpl. Victor A. Gonzalez Gonzalez aspired to be a police officer. He had served as a cadet at the Watsonville Police Department for 3 1/2 years, riding with police officers and helping direct traffic.
“He was a stellar cadet that rose to the highest ranking,” Watsonville Police Capt. Manny Solano said. “He was a role model for all of the other cadets. This has completely devastated our department.”

Army Pfc. Jason L. Sparks

Army Pfc. William R. Strange "You could have given him a million dollars and I don't think that would have made him as happy as being in the military," said his sister, Tawanna Davis. Strange was an outgoing person who loved people and looked out for his family. "He would do crazy stuff just to make us laugh," Davis said. "He would make funny faces. He didn't like seeing people sad.”

You can meet more of these nineteen year olds here, along with many oth 18-22 year olds and on up .

Find their parents' addresses and write them. Thank them for raising such fine Americans.

Then, think long and hard and ask yourself why your making excuses for a bunch of nineteen year olds in Colorado Springs who can't get their act together, who can't follow simple orders, and who wouldn't know honor if they came across it in the dictionary.

Most of that last post was not directed at you sandviper, you just happened to be the last one posting along the lines of what others have said. I know you weren't pulling the little liberal stunt of blaming everybody but the guilty like many were and I apologize for directing that post at you.

I was irritated because I was surprised that some here wanted to deflect blame from the guilty. When some kid shoots another kid, liberals go nuts blaming the NRA, guns, TV, etc., while we blame the kid who pulled the trigger. Many here seem to want to blame everybody but the cadets themselves - they want to blame women, booze, age, location, etc., when nineteen is old enough to be responsible for their actions.

I agree 19 is old enough to be accountable. However, the statistics I heard in a 'sexual assualt' brief indicate the vast majority of these assaults occur when BOTH are drunk and when she invited him into her room.

Afterwards, she says it was assault and he says it was consensual. With the only two witnesses disagreeing, and with both admittedly very drunk at the time, what to do?

If you do nothing, you may well be allowing a man (and at 19, as you have pointed out, he is a man) to commit rape.

If you nail him, you may well be ruining his life for having sex with someone who wanted it at the time.

In Korea, the minimum drinking age has been raised recently to 21 for all military. Folks are briefed on the risks - for both sides (ie, don't take a drunk female back to her room without witnesses, and don't ask a guy to take you back to your room if you've been drinking).

Of course, the first sign you've had too much is you don't know you've had too much.

Whatever the "root cause" of sexual assaults at the AF Academy might be, the fact is such assaults are carried out by cadets.

Frankly, I don't care how provoked one of these guys might be by the sight of women failing to perform the same physical training as the men, but it's my tax dollars at work and I'm not investing them in his libido!

This sort of thing is a fraud on the public treasury. Best thing we can do for these fellows, and any like them who come along thinking it's a free feel and a free feed at the public trough, is to stuff them in the county jail for 6 months to 2 years!

Ex-AFA Leader Says She's Never Seen 'True Rape'

Former Commander Of Cadet Discipline Blames Permissive Attitude To Drinking

POSTED: 9:36 a.m. MDT September 11, 2003

UPDATED: 5:36 p.m. MDT September 11, 2003

WASHINGTON -- The Air Force Academy officer formerly in charge of cadet discipline told military investigators that she never saw a "true rape" at the academy, and that problems were a result of a permissive attitude toward drinking and fraternization.

Col. Laurie Sue Slavic -- picture by Air Force

Col. Laurie Sue Slavec (pictured, left) made her comments to an air force investigator looking into allegations from female cadets who said leadership at the academy was indifferent to their claims that they were sexually assaulted. They said that in some cases, leaders punished the purported victim for violating academy rules.

Portions of the interview transcript were among the thousands of pages of documents released this week by the Air Force investigative panel.

"Partying is encouraged and partying is a ticket to the acceptance community and partying becomes an environment and you introduce alcohol into that which then dilutes the judgments, then sexual assault becomes an issue," Slavec said. "I've never been party to or witnessed somebody who was ... taken by force, which if you look at that end of the spectrum, a true rape or a true violent assault, I've never seen that happen."

She said in the cases she was aware of, there was "contributing flirtatious activity."

I guess all I am saying is that women should be able to prove their worth, same as men. If they measure up, great! If not, so be it. But they should not be treated as second class citizens or frowned upon as being "weak" simply because they are women.

I cannot, and will not, argue this point from all of the philosophical points. However, there are a few issues that must be addressed from a practical perspective completely apart from the philosophical points.

For example, there is Mil Standard 882, the design requirements for aircraft. These standards are set at the “95% male,” meaning that 95% of all military aged males must be able to fit through all openings, lift all associated weights, reach all levers, etc. This standard was limited to 95% of the male population for cost control considerations, i.e., to keep the human design factors for aircraft from being exorbitantly expensive. The theory being that being able to buy more combat aircraft is more important to combat effectiveness than having everyone, and anyone, being able to operate them. There are similar design requirements for nearly all, military hardware that affect potentially everything from pistol grips to body armor. Some equipment accommodations for women are expensive to modify and others fairly cheap and easy but still an administrative and logistical headache to handle.

Statistically, only 20% of all military aged women even fit into the weight or size requirements and even fewer fit into the weight lifting or moving requirements. Is it worth the extreme cost of designing an aircraft cockpit or other military hardware for all women at the expense of being able to afford fewer aircraft, tanks, etc., and, thus, potentially lower combat effectiveness?

In a related vein of thought, to put women on submarines or in similar situations were there is minimal personal privacy and hygiene facilities are very limited would be very unfair to either the females or the males. How would you have women “prove themselves” in these situations?

Don't you think that these men that harrasss the women cadets do so because they feel a bit threatened? I'm just curious as to what your thoughts on this are, from a male perspective. Thanks!

You may have a valid point, I do not know. However, such harassment, if it exists is unacceptable.

Unfortunately, it has been my observation that in the current climate is difficult to define harassment, especially, “sexual harassment.” Having been the beneficiary of a number of blanket “sensitivity” training sessions, both in the military and the corporate world, I can tell you that this issue is more confused and contradictory than practically anything else I have ever seen. It seems that an action is “sexual harassment” whenever a female wants it to be and not when she doesn’t and there is no objective standard to tell the difference.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.