Rape is among the most horrible experience someone can endure, and being a crime of power, it is little surprise that rape and the military is connected in powerful ways. Having previously examined the difficult matter of rape complicating civil-military relations in South Korea [1] and Thailand [2], it is now time to turn to the thorny issue of rape within the military soldiers, often where there is a difference in rank between the rapist and the survivor. Into this difficult position comes a documentary film, which I have not yet seen, that seeks to tell the story of survivors of rape [3]. Like most rape accounts, it seems to focus on women, but that bias aside, seeking justice for rape with growing amounts of women in the military has proven difficult because the chain of command tends to reinforce the same sort of disparity of power that leads to rape in the first place.

The statistics are sobering–about a fifth of all female veterans survive rapes, and about 1% of all accusations of rape in the military lead to discipline taken against the assailant. Now, I am aware that women make false claims of rape or the threat of a rape (I’ve had it happen to me personally), but 99% is far too high of a false positive rate for rape accusations, especially given the culture of the military. When current Defense Secretary Leon Panetta saw the documentary he made changes in how rape is dealt with, recognizing the severity of the problem. Hopefully these measures help survivors of rape and help minimize rapes in the future, but there are are two general social trends in the military that work against efforts to stamp out rape in the military within the military itself.

The first is that the military of any nation prides itself on chain of command, and the demand for unthinking obedience on the part of inferiors of the commands of their senior officers. This is especially true for enlisted soldiers when it comes to their officers. In such an environment, the right of a female soldier to say no to the sexual demands of a commanding officer may be in tension with the expectation of automatic and unquestioned obedience, putting women (especially, but not only, enlisted women) at risk. The same is true in reverse, if the growing amount of women in the military translates into positions as officers, as rape is not a crime of gender, but of power, though men are even less likely to raise accusations of rape than women because of the social stigma of not being seen as manly enough to resist assault in addition to the normal stigma and trauma associated with rape.

The second dangerous trend is that is likely to mitigate against the stop of rape is the growing subjection of the military to the culture wars, including the desire among some to make the military open for degeneracy, which can be expected to lead the military to deal with the same sort of abusive tendencies that are present in other institutions where expectations of obedience and a strong difference of power (as was the case with Boy Scout leaders as well as Catholic priests) make such positions attractive to sexual predators. This is not to say that all, or even most people who go for spots such as a JRTOTC or ROTC adviser are going to seek to exploit their position, but a minority of aggressive abusers is likely to bring a bad reputation upon the majority of those seeking to do a loyal service in encouraging young future leaders of the military. The loss of morale due to such abuse, as well as the damaging effects of that abuse to military families as well as the behavior of soldiers in war and in foreign billets is a serious problem that has to be dealt with.

Naturally, even though the military offers specific challenges to dealing with the problem of rape, there are many similarities between rape within the military and in other places. For one, it is not a crime of sexual desire as much as it is a crime of power, specifically the abuse of one’s power to fulfill one’s desires. All too often victims are blamed, alcohol and substance abuse complicates matters, and power structures tend to lead to the cover up of offenses and minimize the disciplining of rapists. These factors are true in general due to the structural elements of rape (and abuse in general). They are present regardless of who is in power in a given relation–men or women (witness, for example, the ubiquity of women rapists in schools, a place where women have particular power as teachers).

In order for these issues to be dealt with, there are going to have to be larger questions about authority. For example, authorities in any institution must be subject to limitations on their power over others. In the military, this can only be a good thing, as the military tends to engage fairly regularly in abusive behaviors designed to “break down” soldiers. Such behavior in the civilian sphere would be criminal. In general, though, we have to learn, as unpleasant as it is, to respect a no answer from others, no matter what our position relative to theirs. Human beings have the right to refuse the requests of others, a power that might seem somewhat shocking in the context of the military. Perhaps that is part of the problem–unquestioned obedience should never be the expectation when it comes to our own personal demands. And distinguishing between personal demands and the demands of a situation is difficult when we have too little respect for others as human beings.

[1] https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress.com/2011/10/03/rape-and-the-military-culture/

[2] https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress.com/2012/05/15/rape-and-the-military-culture-part-two/

[3] http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/the-womens-blog-with-jane-martinson/2012/oct/29/rape-military-shocking-truth?fb=optOut