The Drunk Guy in the Parking Lot

In her article Ms Estrich stated: "But the military has problems of its own,...A system in which rank precedes your name, in which orders are given and followed, in which "loyalty" is the paramount virtue..."

Why are any of these things 'problems'? The US military services were created to kill and maim people and destroy property in the name of the people of the United States (not that anyone serving really wants that to come to pass). This isn't quite the same kind of job as practicing law or being a Physicist. It involves, at best, long periods away from home under less than optimal conditions. At worst, it can become a very nasty and brutish occupation. Motivating people to join the service, stay in for a career, and perform well over a twenty year career is difficult. The military system has evolved to take young kids, make them into warriors, have them perform well in combat, and get them out alive. It isn't the most egalitarian, intellectual, or democratic system out there, but it does work. The 'problems' listed above are a few of the unique traits that help a military to win wars and soldiers/sailors to survive combat. Do you want to reform the military to make it into an organization that is more 'caring', but doesn't win wars?


Ms. Estrich further stated: "...and in which women have been third- and fourth-class citizens so long that second class looks good is bound to be among the last plantations for sexual abuse."

This is absolutely ridiculous. I've served with plenty of fine individuals, both male and female, over the years. the vast majority have treated one another with respect and dignity. The services are no more misogynistic than the society from which they are formed. In fact, I would hazard to say that male/female relations are much better in the military than they are on any college campus. Any organization (even the bar) has a few bad apples. For example, even the office of the President has occasionally been occupied by individuals with less than stellar records for dealing with the opposite sex.

Finally, Ms. Estrich wrote: "For decades, ruining a poor guy's career ("poor guy") when he's risked his life for his country "just because he had a few too many" has been a charge unfairly lobbed at the few women who dare to complain."

This is the all too human practice of not believing the worst about your comrades and trying to protect them from the consequences of their own actions. Not the smartest activity in the world, but hardly unique to the military. I can site plenty of examples of lawyers, teachers, and politicians who have engaged in similar practices. In fact, I seem to recall an entire political party fell into this trap in the recent past. In a marvelous example of group think and special pleading this political organization blamed the female victims and not the senior politician (who was the "poor boy" in this case) for his entirely abysmal behavior. Perhaps if we want the military to perform better in this regard, we shouldn't make exceptions for politicians in high places?

Can the military do better regarding the treatment of the women in it's ranks? Of course. I can attest that the services spend a great deal of time and effort in this regard (In my opinion, almost to the point of endangering their primary mission). Is the military some awful fraternal/misogynistic organization? Absolutely not.

All in all Ms. Estrich, not one of your more thoughtful articles.

Woman gets groped. Who cares? Move along, nothing to see here.

Which is more important, this incident or Benghazi? I'll be the liberal press gives this incident far more attention than Benghazi.

Question -
Was there a drunken female in the parking lot also. What went on in the bar before this incident?
I know it doesn't matter is rape occured, BUT groping may have been waranted.

Re: pb1222 Who made more wrong decisions that cost more lives. Bush with Iraq which cost allmost 5000 American Troop's lives as well as by our own official count 10,000s Iraqi innocent civilian lives

OR

4 members of the Foreign Service who even if the worst accounts are true died in service to their country the same way troops do in a war.

It's hard to take the Reich Wing's obsession with the death at Benghazi as anything but a test of "the big lie" theory. They want to see if they still have the ability to pulll the wool over all good American's eyes regarding their agenda by talking about the current Administration's possible mistakes that resulted in 4 deaths in hopes of making everyone forget that Republicans and Republican policy was responsible for almost 10,000 dead US Soldiers fighting in 2 wars that did NOT need to be faught, and one in particular (Iraq) where Americans who trusted their president learned later that he and his Republican administration LIED to get us to invade Iraq.

If Republicans insist on going to Benghazi, then Democrats should insist on returning to the topic of the massive, purposeful lies told in the run up to the invasion of Iraq.

the status of limitations on war crimes NEVER runs out.

Nancy Pelosi must be kicking herself right now.

For it was she who ensured no impeachment attempts would be brought in the House against the former president.

I hope she has finally learned that when it comes to Republicans any act of political civility will be repaid 100x over with contempt.

Re: jonathan seer
Bush lied, people died. People died, Obama lied.
However, Bush didn't lie; the world intelligence all said Iraq had weapons.