previous post next post  

Peters and criminality in the Armed Forces

In this space, I've not glossed over nor ignored the instances when US military personnel have done Bad Things. In my self-appointed role as explainer or context provider - I do that, provide context, or explain what's going on that might not be clear (or is ignored) in the MSM reportage, usually in comparison with past wars and other militaries.

I haven't made the time to do any really detailed comparison pieces - which is too bad, because the anti-war types oft times seize on these events to tar the soldiery and portray them as the dregs of society - which fits neatly into their world view.

But I've asserted time and again - if you *have* to have an Army crashing through where you live, in wartime, the Anglosphere Armies are, on balance, the ones you want crashing through.

Ralph Peters took the time (hey, you can do that when you get paid to write this stuff for a living) to do a little comparing. I'll let his piece do the talking.

While crimes committed by our troops can't be condoned (and they certainly aren't), official crime statistics make it clear that we have the best-behaved military in history - one that's vastly more law-abiding than our general population.

The here-at-home numbers are readily available from public sources. So let's compare some domestic crime rates with the misdeeds of those vicious storm-troopers of ours.

In the 19-month period - over a year and a half - from Jan. 1, 2006 until the morning you read this, misbehavior by our troops resulted in a total of 59 scheduled court-martials in Iraq - 21 of them general court-martials, which are reserved for the most-serious crimes (murder, rape, robbery, assault, arson and so forth). The other 38 were special court-martials, invoked for lesser offenses, such as disciplinary infractions or petty theft.

OK: 59 trials in 19 months, among an average troop population of almost 140,000. Compare that to civilian crime statistics back home, and it's clear that any of us would welcome the chance to live among such model citizens - even though our troops are overwhelmingly within the age window where criminal behavior is most frequent.

Start with a city that Money magazine rated as "one of the 10 best places to live" in the United States: Ann Arbor, Mich. Home to a great university, the town has a population of about 113,300 - about 20,000 lower than our pre-surge troop numbers in Iraq.

In 2005 (the last year for which statistics are available), that ideal place to live recorded 1,476 crimes that, if committed by a soldier, would have required a general court-martial - plus a further 2,282 thefts and similar infractions that, depending on the details, would have been handled by either a general or a special court-martial.

Twelve months in Ann Arbor, 3,758 court-martial-equivalent trials. If all the crimes had been taken to court, which one doubts. Nineteen months in Iraq, under the complex stresses of combat? Fifty-nine court-martials. Guess that bastion of ethical liberalism in Michigan needs to go through basic training.

As always - you should read the whole thing - here at the NY Post - and draw your own conclusions, not just nod or shake your head at mine.

2 Comments

I wuz gonna say that if you were doing the whole US the numbers weren't going to fly, but a town was picked with a similar age and number of population...what about crime stats by gender? Is there a correlation to numbers of women in both scenarios? I did read the article and chewed on the results. My question is this: If the offenses were courts martial worthy or requiring of discipline, what did the city or university of Ann Arbor do as a deterrent, if they were allowed to spank the brats at all?
 
...what did the city or university of Ann Arbor do as a deterrent, if they were allowed to spank the brats at all? I think Cricket struck on another major difference. And -- left unsaid, 'cuz she's a Lady -- perhaps a major underlying cause...
 
© 2008 John Donovan
All rights reserved.