previous post next post  

Mud wrestling at Camp Bucca

By The Armorer on February 7, 2005 | | Comments (30)

By now you've probably heard about the mud wrestling incident, something a lot less worrisome than what normally happens during Spring Break around the country.

And, while it *was* a dumb idea, you can expect this kind of thing when you throw a whole bunch of very healthy, young men and women, facing danger, together. Heck, look what we get at South Padre, Daytona, and Mardi Gras from college kids!

Kind of a given.

If you haven't read about it you can do so here, here, and here.

If the troop described below is the one who got smacked, well, the CO didn't really have a whole lot of choice...

A young blond lifts her T-shirt to expose her breasts. A brunette turns her back to the camera and exposes her thong undies.

What I wanna really know is - where was the leadership? That wasn't an E4 and below only party. Which idiot non-commissioned or commissioned officer decided this was a good idea?

Like it or not, guys, this ain't your father's Army, Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force. In the days of digits, stuff like this is going to get out. Yeah, it's dumb in many respects we have to worry about it. But we do. I've got a few junior enlisted contacts out there, one of whom is a female recently returned from Iraq. The environment bristles with sexual tension. That kind of environment always has. And having a female troop flash her boobs (or a male do the equivalent) does NOT help relieve that tension... nor make it easier to keep a safe environment for all concerned.

The issue of whether the women should be there is moot in this discussion - they are there, and the Commanders have to deal with it - and that means that they have to sit on it, even if it makes the troops pissy sometimes. Comes with the job.

What do you think?

Share This Article:

Share |

Categories:

30 Comments

By Puddle Pirate on February 7, 2005 9:58 AM
I agree, John. Ideally there'd be no co-ed units in combat or on extended and isolated deployment, but we're stuck with reality. Until we collectively wise up and prevent this from happening by pulling women from combat, the military leadership's gonna have to devote valuable time and attention to hormone suppression. And by "leadership", I most definitely mean officers and NCOs.
 
By PhantomObserver on February 7, 2005 10:00 AM
I think we expect our men and women in uniform to behave like paragons of virtue, both on-duty and off, regardless of their gender. It's no good saying that these things happen, and shrugging it off as misspent youth. These things should NOT happen. This is the path that leads to things like Tailhook. We expect the uniforms to be professionals, in behaviour and demeanor. We should NOT have to explain to the younger soldiers that mud wrestling (or barroom brawling, or hazing activities like Abu Gharib) is a bad idea; we expect that to be obvious to them already.
 
By PhantomObserver on February 7, 2005 10:00 AM
I think we expect our men and women in uniform to behave like paragons of virtue, both on-duty and off, regardless of their gender. It's no good saying that these things happen, and shrugging it off as misspent youth. These things should NOT happen. This is the path that leads to things like Tailhook. We expect the uniforms to be professionals, in behaviour and demeanor. We should NOT have to explain to the younger soldiers that mud wrestling (or barroom brawling, or hazing activities like Abu Gharib) is a bad idea; we expect that to be obvious to them already.
 
By John of Argghhh! on February 7, 2005 10:27 AM
We expect them to assimilate those values and standards as set, practiced, and enforced by the leadership. This event is a leadership failure, no matter how you slice it. Yes, I expect my troops to know better - but the operative phrase is "Trust, but verify."
 
By Steamer on February 7, 2005 10:50 AM
Look at the bright side-- that O-6 doing the boo-ga-loo a while back is nowhere to be seen in these pics. Progress! I have to wonder how far we're going to take the argument that 'unprofessional' behavior cannot be tolerated. Leadership needs to find a creative outlet for folks who need to blow off steam. Any ideas?
 
By Sgt. B. on February 7, 2005 11:13 AM
*sigh* The NCO side of me is dissappointed in the lack of leadership... The "Grunt" side of me argues that there was no harm, no foul.. Many of us have spent long tours overseas, where there's little to break the monotony, or to take our minds off of the job at hand... We've seen events, sanctioned and non-sanctioned, that try to levitate the mood... I've heard of worse ways to spend the time... (Not condemning, not condoning..) Don't know which way to jump on this one... Obviously a break down in leadership, but I'm not willing to make a Federal Case out of it...
 
By Walter E. Wallis on February 7, 2005 11:24 AM
I hate to rush to judgement. Please send me a set of the photographs to help make up my mind.
 
By Lucius Severus Pertinax on February 7, 2005 11:32 AM
I know that if I were in command of that unit, every NCO that was at that "event", every NCO that knew about it, without reporting it, would have their balls served to them on a platter, fried in their own grease. I would then make it lucidly clear to my remaining NCOs and subordinate commanders that if MY career was in any way placed in danger,through their actions or inactions, of circling the bowl, it would enjoy PLENTY of company. John's verdict is absolutely correct: a failure of leadership. OTOH, we are dealing here with very fundamental drives here. The troops, particularly the young ones, are going to be unconvinced, on a visceral level, that authority has any business trying to control them in this area. Inevidably, attempts on the part of authority to do so is going to create an adversarial situation; i.e. (to put it in it's bluntest terms)"Who are they to tell us who we can and cannot have sex with?" An excellent question. The only solutions I can up with is to either put an end to co-ed units in combat or on extended deployment OR simply accept this sort of thing as a part of military life. In the latter case, we are consrained to ask: "Do these revels effect military efficiency?" "What if Officers, NCOs and other ranks, are strictly segregated?" "Can these activities be regulated; still allowing the troops to "blow off steam", yet at the same time be kept in bounds by more senior 'chaperones'?" The paradox here is that the younger troops want to act like children, yet at the same time resent being treated like them. This is not surprising, since we are dealing, in many cases, with individuals that are still adolescents, with many of an adolescent's attitudes, prejudices and resentments that military training has only imperfectly pounded out of them. It is a certainty that this is a problem requireing more study and that it will not likely be solved by hitting it with a hammer. Comments?
 
By John of Argghhh! on February 7, 2005 11:43 AM
Sorry Uncle Walt - even the NY Daily News didn't go with the *good* shots.
 
By cw4billt on February 7, 2005 12:02 PM
"Failure of leadership" in this instance was preceded by "failure of common sense." I mean, we did some really stupid things in Vietnam to "blow off steam," like, going out with the ARVNS on a night ambush patrol, but Gah-DAM, Sam--mud-wrestling?!? What were they thinking?
 
By Sgt. B. on February 7, 2005 12:06 PM
Excellent observation, Lucius... I've often wondered at the glaring dichotomy (sp?) between "Life in Uniform" and the rest of the world? Military figures are supposed to be paragons of virtue, and the offenses that private business commit in daily activities would land a soldier in jail faster than you can say "Jack Robinson"... But, in the end, it is the soldier that gets crucified in the world press, with nary a word said about the same shenanigans occuring on Bourbon Street during Marti Gras... I agree that soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines represent that which is the best of American military prowess... But, contrary to popular belief, they are also human. If the event in question resulted in no injuries, no sexual assaults, no alcohol poisoning, no sexual haressment charges, no loss of readiness, or the like, I would opt to treat it as another "high-spirited dumb stunt", slap some wrists, knock some heads together, and make sure it never happened again... ...And if it did ever happen again, I would castrate the first person to show up with any sort of image recording device. This will, no doubt, make its way into the curriculum of the various military leadership schools, as a "What went wrong?" and "What would you do?" discussion.
 
By PhantomObserver on February 7, 2005 12:30 PM
...And if it did ever happen again, I would castrate the first person to show up with any sort of image recording device. Wrong answer. It is not the fault of the person with the recording device that silly things happen. If said recorder wants to tell the world that silly things happen, and then furnish proof of this, (s)he is well within his/her rights to do so (freedom of speech, y'know?). The obvious answer to the dilemma is to ensure that the silly thing doesn't happen to begin with. You've got a lot of young people willing to blow of steam? Fine. Plan for it. Give'em co-ed rugby (but not shirts vs. skins), or beach volleyball, see if you've got people from the SCA and organize a tourney, set up dancing lessons, whatever. Just remember that you want events that, if photographed or otherwise recorded, aren't going to land you in hot water with your parents back home.
 
By John of Argghhh! on February 7, 2005 12:39 PM
Bingo! The Phantom Observer scores!
 
By cw4billt on February 7, 2005 12:49 PM
Gee, what was that cogent observation that wafted through last week...something like, "You only have one reputation" or words to that effect...
 
By Sgt. B. on February 7, 2005 1:34 PM
Phantom, Actually, that was a bit o' tongue in cheekieness there... After the bit o' ass chewing I was planning, there wouldn't be a next time... You have a valid point, however...
 
By Sgt. B. on February 7, 2005 1:38 PM
And... SCA? Be ye a sword slinger? Oh dear, now I've done it... Yes John, I know, get to the weapons locker and start cleaning the siege engines, as I crewed one for the Califian Iron Brigade, once upon a time... (I think Bill told me he left one o' them bottles o' Ol' Grandad...)
 
By John of Argghhh! on February 7, 2005 1:50 PM
And just *what* am I cleaning off of my siege engines, he asked dangerously...?
 
By Sgt. B. on February 7, 2005 2:02 PM
I dunno... We cleaned our rifles and crew served three times a week, but I'll be jiggered if I could find what had made 'em dirty! But it came down from higher headquarters, so we cleaned 'em right good 'n' proper...
 
By AFSister on February 7, 2005 2:24 PM
Don't ask me- ask the cats. They were responsible for the siege engines while you were out. WHUACK! Hairball....
 
By cw4billt on February 7, 2005 3:10 PM
Dangit, I told you to save the hairballs for the mangonel...
 
By Donnah on February 7, 2005 6:07 PM
There were officers there who did not intervene. The NCOs there not only did not intervene, they arranged it. Lower enlisteds stripping down to bras and panties and mud wrestling while officers and NCOs watch. Unacceptable.
 
By John of Argghhh! on February 7, 2005 6:24 PM
If that's the case, Donnah - more blood should follow.
 
By PhantomObserver on February 7, 2005 6:35 PM
Blood? No. Demotions? You betcha.
 
By Simon and the Lefties on February 8, 2005 1:48 AM
A big group of nineteen year-olds with sexual tension! Quel shock! Get them out of Iraq! They should be paragons of virtue . . . like their piers in Universities back in the "homeland" (die Heimat). Whatever dude, these are just really fucking stressed-out kids - let them do what they want in their off-hours.
 
By John of Argghhh! on February 8, 2005 6:19 AM
Well, in previous wars we did, Simon - but this time the press and the public won't let us. As for the rest, you've never *really* had to deal with the morale-sapping effects of sexual harassment, have you? The one chick may like it - but there are others who will also pay the price for it. And as for "Heimat," dude - the whole Nazi thing is sooo old and passe'. You wouldn't know a real Nazi if he hit you in the face.
 
By cw4billt on February 8, 2005 8:34 AM
Looks like Simon's caught the double-post twitch, too. Don't panic, laddie--just a sign you're advancing in years...
 
By cw4billt on February 8, 2005 8:38 AM
John - It's passé not passe'--jeez, spend a week in the Sunshine State and all the melanin rushes to yer fingertips...
 
By Heartless Libertarian on February 8, 2005 9:06 AM
Everyone seems to be focusing on the sexy parts of the incident-mudwrestling females, flashing, and sex-while missing a rather obvious and glaring violation of CENTCOM GO #1: a large number of the troops involved were apparently drunk, including some of the NCOs. If only for that, they should be crushed. And if the civilian contractors provided it, they should all be fired. The Army tends to be very heavy handed with sexual stuff simply because a) things like that can get out of control and do a lot of damage to a unit very quickly; and b) the press jumps all over it when they find out (sex sells, after all, and they get to beat on the military as a bonus) and it can do enormous public relations damage.
 
By Barb on February 8, 2005 10:36 AM
I wondered about the alcohol part myself. How is it that they had enough real booze to get this outta control? Seems like another example of leadership failing.
 
By freakchylde on February 8, 2005 3:13 PM
Well, this is one girl that decided to not go into the military because of the fact that every job I'd be interested in, isn't available to me because I'm missing something between my legs. I'd rather be on the frontline, than sitting in back. As for sexual tension, let them release it. If the women weren't there, there'd still be the same tension, just no real women to look at. Seriously, the only real problem is that these soldiers don't understand the concept of leaving the cameras at home.