This year, more than one in nine Army recruits has a criminal record

[edschweppe]

I saw this story as I was packing for my canoe trip, and decided not to write about it then because it was too depressing. As Bryan Bender wrote in Friday's Boston Globe:

WASHINGTON -- Nearly 12 percent of Army recruits who entered basic training this year needed a special waiver for those with criminal records, a dramatic increase over last year and 2 1/2 times the percentage four years ago, according to new Army statistics obtained by the Globe.

With less than three months left in the fiscal year, 11.6 percent of new active-duty and Army Reserve troops in 2007 have received a so-called "moral waiver," up from 7.9 percent in fiscal year 2006, according to figures from the US Army Recruiting Command. In fiscal 2003 and 2004, soldiers granted waivers accounted for 4.6 percent of new recruits; in 2005, it was 6.2 percent.

Army officials acknowledge privately that the increase in moral waivers reflects the difficulty of signing up sufficient numbers of recruits to sustain an increasingly unpopular war in Iraq; the Army fell short of its monthly recruiting goals in May and June.

Since Oct. 1, 2006, when the fiscal year began, more than 8,000 of the roughly 69,000 recruits have been granted waivers for offenses ranging in seriousness from misdemeanors such as vandalism to felonies such as burglary and aggravated assault.

That's more than one recruit of every nine coming in with a criminal record - and not just parking tickets, or kids given the choice between enlisting or jail time. These are people with either multiple misdemeanor convictions, or a single "less serious" felony conviction:

Moral waivers must be approved by an officer of the rank of lieutenant colonel or higher and are required when an Army applicant has been found guilty of committing four or more minor offenses such as littering or disorderly conduct -- or two to four misdemeanors such as larcency, trespassing, or vandalism.

Applicants who have committed a single felony such as arson, burglary, aggravated assault, breaking and entering, or marijuana possession must also receive a moral waiver to join. Applicants with more than one felony -- or with a single conviction for a more serious crime such as homicide, sexual violence, or drug trafficking -- are not eligible.

That high a percentage of folks with criminal records is going to leave a legacy of disciplinary problems for years to come. Then, there are the Aryan Nations types that are joining up for the training (and leaving graffiti in the streets of Baghdad).

Oh, well. Just another example of how the current Administration is doing its best to break the armed forces, I suppose.

Comments

[wcg.livejournal.com]

What's the Army to do Ed? They have to get manpower somewhere. It's either lower standards until you can get enough volunteers, or drop the all volunteer Army concept. Of the two, I prefer the first, however distasteful.

[edschweppe.livejournal.com]

It's either lower standards until you can get enough volunteers, or drop the all volunteer Army concept.

There's also the option of paying more money (in signing bonuses, pay, etc.) and maintaining the standards. Of course, that would require the Administration to go hat-in-hand to Congress and admit the existence of problems, which said Administration steadfastly refuses to do. Alternatively, they could dramatically expand the available forces by doing a full mobilization of the Reserves and the National Guard. However, that would again require getting permission from Congress, since they're already burning through the existing "peacetime" mobilization limits.

I agree that the Army in particular is in a really tough bind. They are doing their damnedest to accomplish an brutally difficult mission without the resources necessary to do so. Unfortunately, by choosing cuts in quality over cuts in quantity, they're enabling the political types to continue ignoring the underlying problem. And, frankly, AFAICT the Bushies' primary mission now is to stall until January 2009, dump the problems on the next Administration and then blame them for the disaster. I see no signs that the senior civilian "leadership" gives a rat's ass about the forces at all.

Accepting poorer quality to make short term numbers is the quick, "cheap" and in the short term relatively painless "solution". In my not terribly humble opinion, though, it's also the cowards' way out of the bind that the Army brass are in.

[wcg.livejournal.com]

The administration has demonstrated quite clearly what it will do to any General officer who doesn't get with the program. Those who've chosen to speak up are now speaking up from retirement, unable to lead troops in the field.

[edschweppe.livejournal.com]

Too true. On the other hand, if the general officers' corps continually refused to screw their own troops over, eventually the Administration would start running low on generals. Granted, the Bushies might not care, but hopefully their remaining enablers in Congress would care, and would start asking questions.

Yes, it'd be hard on the individual generals; OTOH, when the generals are more concerned about their careers than about their troops, the Army's already in deep shit.

[wcg.livejournal.com]

American Generals have been more concerned about their careers than about their troops since at least 1798, and arguably long before then. We occasionally get an exception like Joshua L. Chamberlain, but they're relatively rare.