Putting a negative spin on a “second chance”
For a number of Americans throughout our history, military service has been an opportunity to straighten their lives out after some youthful mistakes. The NYT puts a negative spin on this in an article today, choosing a story line that the Iraq war has forced the military to recruit criminals:
The number of waivers granted to Army recruits with criminal backgrounds has grown about 65 percent in the last three years, increasing to 8,129 in 2006 from 4,918 in 2003…
You have to read further to find out that 90% of these cases are misdemeanors. It is unclear from the article what the breakdown of the serious misdemeanors is, but the clear implication of the piece is that the military is a barrel full of bad apples. And you have to read much further into the article to find this:
In the last three years, the percentage of moral waivers for all new enlistments in the four services combined has fallen 3 percent…The Marine Corps issues far more moral waivers than the Army — 20,750 in 2006 — but only because it has a stricter policy on drug use. It requires waivers for one-time marijuana use…
So on balance the number of waivers granted by the military as a whole has fallen over the last three years. Who would have guessed, based on the scare headlines?
It also turns out that there is an interesting story buried within the spin of the NYT, If only it would tell the story. In 2006, the Army and Marines accepted about 1500 people who had been at some point been convicted of one felony of certain limited types. According to Bill Carr, the under secretary of military personnel policy, they were only accepted after a detailed review of each case, having “scrutinized a recruit’s full record, the nature of the crime, when it was committed, the degree of rehabilitation and references from teachers, employers, coaches and clergy members.”
To us it looks like the military is doing something really good, offering a chance to some American young men and women to get their lives back on track, after thoroughly reviewing individual situations. There are probably some outstanding cases of success (and no doubt of failure too). Pity the NYT didn’t think to write about them, preferring its chosen story line that the military is full of the type of people who become thugs and murderers because good and sensible men and women will no longer sign up.
UPDATE
For good measure, we link to the Heritage Study on the above average demographics of the military, the DoD’s analysis showing superior education levels in the military, and some personal testimonies from Michelle Malkin’s readers. Those who are lucky enough to find themselves given a second chance in the military do so with an outstanding group of Americans to help them along.
February 14th, 2007 at 8:42 am
Putting a negative spin on a “second chance”
I question whether upscale America still believes in merit-based social mobility. (Whatever the original intent of affirmative-action efforts may have been, afaic diversity-based selection has become a cave-in to political constituencies.)
I’m pretty that in their hearts American elites regard force as intrinsically illegitimate. The only exception is when PC victims use force to “express anger”.
Hence the NYT article is a twofer.
Waivers have spiked in the Army/Marines while declining overall. To me that suggests that these two services are being avoided by enlistees who prefer not to be in combat.
Having written the above, I still find it surprising that “soldiers with criminal histories made up only (only?! –gs) 11.7 percent of the Army recruits in 2006″, even though the article grudgingly acknowledges that the fraction is within historical norms.
February 14th, 2007 at 2:49 pm
The Royal Navy sends recruitters to prisons for prospects. Sure it’s a tradition, but there’s northing to say they don’t make as good a sailor as they did in Nelson’s day.
After all, being aboard ship is like being in prison, with the added chance of being drowned. (S. J.)