The EFCP (Evaluation of Female Combat Personnel) Program

[Legbreaker]

As for Germany, in either the v1 or v2 timeline they started the European phase of the war in 1997 for what are nationalist reasons.

Note that in 2.2 Germany crossed the Polish border on the 27th of July 1996.
The remainder of Nato weren't drawn in until approximately late November 1996.

[helbent4]

Note that in 2.2 Germany crossed the Polish border on the 27th of July 1996.
The remainder of Nato weren't drawn in until approximately late November 1996.

Leg,

Epic fail!

What's a year more or less, Mr. Smarty-Pants

Corrected.

Tony

[Legbreaker]

I haven't got 1.0 handy here at work, but I think West Germany moved into East Germany a bit later in 1996 than in 2.x. I've got a feeling it was only a week or so before the US and UK moved (late November).

[Adm.Lee]

The greater inclusion of women into the military and further into front-line combat collided with the influx of a core hardened criminal element that had been accepted into military service for one reason or another.

It is impossible to determine statistics but it's possible that as many as 20-25% or more of inductees in 1997 and after in the US military had some kind of criminal record, up to and including felony convictions such as theft, violent assault, drug charges, even murder and sexual assault. ...

... The relaxation of supervision and eventual breakdown in morale and disciple put the large influx of female conscripts squarely on a collision course with various former and current criminal elements, especially those with a history of violence or sexual assault against women. Interestingly, women serving in combat units through the EFCP experienced lower level of sexual harassment and sexual assault (rape), but few were completely immune.

Just my opinion, but this last sentence sounds really optimistic to me, given the previous statements. I can see higher levels of harassment and assault across the board. Further, I can then see a lot of revenge violence by friends/allies/NCOs against the assaulters. If gangs are involved, the potential for a spiral of violence within units seems staggering. Admittedly, it might stabilize by 2000(2013, whatever your timeline) as the offenders are driven out one way or another, but until then, I think you've got the potential to really rip units apart. (I feel so glad I'm not a company or battalion commander in this environment!)

To drag the real world into this, I think in the last 1-2 years, two soldiers and/or Marines have been convicted of murdering fellow (female) soldiers/Marines. Those were at Stateside bases (one was at Lejeune, but the woman was from near here, so it got local news coverage), I can only imagine what it might look like overseas, with everyone armed and twitchy from combat stress.

Sort of returning to the Program, I remember reading something that said that women, when introduced to a previously-all-male environment, tended to keep quiet or act much like the guys. Until the number of women in the group rose above 3. Then, with some sort of "critical mass," they started to assert themselves more, no longer being alone. I should think an important component of this working might be to try to assign women together as much as possible. Safety in numbers, and all that.

[Mohoender]

Mohoender,

Agreed, and please accept my apologies for any sarcasm. It was meant somewhat in jest, but we must be careful about opening any cans of worms, too.

As for Germany, in either the v1 or v2 timeline they started the European phase of the war in 1996 for what are nationalist reasons. It's not hard to see that at that time a similar court judgment could have been handed down a few years early during the time of patriotic fervor, nationalist feeling and the buildup to war.

No problem and good point.

[helbent4]

Just my opinion, but this last sentence sounds really optimistic to me, given the previous statements. I can see higher levels of harassment and assault across the board. Further, I can then see a lot of revenge violence by friends/allies/NCOs against the assaulters. If gangs are involved, the potential for a spiral of violence within units seems staggering. Admittedly, it might stabilize by 2000(2013, whatever your timeline) as the offenders are driven out one way or another, but until then, I think you've got the potential to really rip units apart. (I feel so glad I'm not a company or battalion commander in this environment!)

Adm.,

Hey, I'm just pulling this out of my ass!

What little I've read about women in the CF in combat roles (armoured recce, infantry, etc.) suggests that sexual assault is far more likely to occur in rear or base areas, or back home in Canada. I would guess the reason is that even with the EFCP, women would be relatively rarest in the front lines. There is simply more opportunity where there are more women. Plus, on the front lines there is less chance for privacy and frankly, you simply have a lot more to worry about than sex! further, if it's true that criminal elements will tend to be kept from the front lines they will be concentrated in the rear areas. Consensual sex, like sexual assault, requires opportunity as well as privacy. Therefore you'd see it happening in the rear areas (no pun intended) as well.

Tony

[Adm.Lee]

further, if it's true that criminal elements will tend to be kept from the front lines they will be concentrated in the rear areas.

Given that, I might agree with you, then. I assumed the "criminal elements" would be posted to the infantry, as that's where the replacements are needed most. And I'm certain more than one officer or NCO saw them as more expendable than anyone else.

OTOH, the idea that women might be "safer" in the front lines might lead to more of them volunteering for that duty, which seems all kinds of weird to me, but if they can stick together, as I mentioned before, that seems to make some kind of sense.

Branching back to the drafted gang-members, I am reminded of something I read about in WWII. I'll look it up, and post more in a bit.

[helbent4]

Given that, I might agree with you, then. I assumed the "criminal elements" would be posted to the infantry, as that's where the replacements are needed most. And I'm certain more than one officer or NCO saw them as more expendable than anyone else.

OTOH, the idea that women might be "safer" in the front lines might lead to more of them volunteering for that duty, which seems all kinds of weird to me, but if they can stick together, as I mentioned before, that seems to make some kind of sense.

Branching back to the drafted gang-members, I am reminded of something I read about in WWII. I'll look it up, and post more in a bit.

Adm.,

Probably there should be a clearer caveat. There would likely be some serious incidents of sexual assault, intimidation and discrimination as order and disciple breaks down. This would involve individuals or even groups, with possible subsequent retaliation. Not enough to derail the program (too much need for warm bodies at the sharp end) but enough to show there would be friction. Especially where there are bad characters with not enough supervision.

Criminals in uniform have always been a problem, of course. With the numbers of Americans that are in or have been through the corrections system, it's not hard to see why exceptions seem natural. I don't think we'd see "penal battalions" because it's foreign to our culture but the idea has some allure. I'm not surprised there was a definite criminal element present in WWII, with conscription the bad would be swept in with the good.

FBI gang investigator Jennifer Simon said in an e-mail to Stars and Stripes this week [in Dec. 2006] that gang members have been documented on or near U.S. military bases in Germany, Italy, Japan, South Korea and Iraq.

"It's no secret that gang members are prevalent in the armed forces, including internationally," Simon said, adding that the FBI is preparing to release a report on gangs in the military.

There are no official statistics on gang membership in the military, but some experts have estimated that 1 percent to 2 percent of the U.S. military are gang members, Simon said. That compares with just 0.02 percent of the U.S. population believed to be gang members, she wrote.

"Gang membership in the U.S. armed forces is disproportional to the U.S. population," she added.

http://libertystreetusa.blogspot.com/2006/12/us-militarys-gang-and-felon-problem.html

An article in the NYT in 2008 put the number of recruits allowed to enlist through moral waivers for a criminal record at 1 in 10, some sources put it higher at 1 in 8. Mind you, these are just the recruits and not the US military as a whole, so proportionally the numbers are going to be lower overall. But still high, and likely to get higher as standards are lowered and conscription becomes universal.

Tony

[pmulcahy11b]

As far as drafting/recruiting gang members:

For sure, there are some where the military is about training with weapons and tactics and bringing them back to their homies, while developing some contacts for their criminal activities such as drugs worldwide.

But there are some for whom the military represents the way out of poverty and the gangs that they are so desperately looking for. Yes, there may be some personality issues to deal with due to their upbringing, and they may have some ugly artwork on their bodies (tattoo removal for them should be fully funded and encouraged), but for some gang members, the military is a way out of the crappy lives they are living. There may not be as many problems with them as one might think.

Of course, with a draft, you'll get more bad apples.

[helbent4]

But there are some for whom the military represents the way out of poverty and the gangs that they are so desperately looking for. Yes, there may be some personality issues to deal with due to their upbringing, and they may have some ugly artwork on their bodies (tattoo removal for them should be fully funded and encouraged), but for some gang members, the military is a way out of the crappy lives they are living. There may not be as many problems with them as one might think.

Paul,

That's a good point and something I considered. Not all gang members are completely in the "thug life" that they can't be set straight, some just didn't have a real choice in life. So of course, not all can be tarred with the same brush!

I think part of why "rehab via military" works is that gang members and other criminals are given opportunities they didn't have before, and (more importantly) are removed from their old lives and separated from old "bad" friends. Presumably, the gang-bangers who are currently allowed to enlist don't have serious drug or violent crime charges, aren't alcoholics or drug addtics, etc. Problems will happen when the "bad apples" grow in proportion, and they can remind and reinforce the thug life mentality. Plus, conscripts will have less invested in their future and the opportunities the military allows, thus less reason to change and buy into the program.

Tony

[natehale1971]

Actually i've got a good use for 'Penal Battalions'...

Helping with labor intensive jobs. be it disaster cleanup, fire-fighting, and helping with farming. These three things are JUST three that we have convict labor being used for here in the US today.

the use of "Penal Battalions" in the Army would be to assign them to Combat Engineers and other Rear Areas (under the watchful eyes of Military Police & the Corps of Engineers) for the construction of fortifications and cantonments, with helping in the recovery efforts and the like. The only downside to this overseas, would be the bad PR if some of these criminal element falls back to their old ways and starts raping and killing the people we're trying to help. But that can be said of regular troopers as well (as we saw with Belgium's peacekeepers to a UN Mission to Africa).

Which brings me to this point... What would such a program be called we already have a name for women in combat, but wwhat of the penal battalions what would politicians call something like that

[dragoon500ly]

[QUOTE=helbent4;28603]What little I've read about women in the CF in combat roles (armoured recce, infantry, etc.) suggests that sexual assault is far more likely to occur in rear or base areas, or back home in Canada. I would guess the reason is that even with the EFCP, women would be relatively rarest in the front lines. There is simply more opportunity where there are more women. Plus, on the front lines there is less chance for privacy and frankly, you simply have a lot more to worry about than sex! further, if it's true that criminal elements will tend to be kept from the front lines they will be concentrated in the rear areas. Consensual sex, like sexual assault, requires opportunity as well as privacy. Therefore you'd see it happening in the rear areas (no pun intended) as well. [QUOTE]

Don't know about the consensual sex if a woman was assigned to a tank crew. We are rather known for that appealing mix of used propellent, diesel, sweat and that special "eau de assault on de senses" that comes when you drop four people in an armored box and seal the hatches....

[Legbreaker]

We are rather known for that appealing mix of used propellent, diesel, sweat and that special "eau de assault on de senses" that comes when you drop four people in an armored box and seal the hatches....

Minty fresh! :P

[pmulcahy11b]

Minty fresh! :P

Not to mention the lack of shaving of certain areas that occurs in the field...yuck...

[Fusilier]

What little I've read about women in the CF in combat roles (armoured recce, infantry, etc.) suggests that sexual assault is far more likely to occur in rear or base areas, or back home in Canada.

Correct. Another reason for that is any form of a romantic/physical/sexual (or whatever you want to call it) relationship is strictly forbidden while on operations. This even extends to legally married couples jointly deployed. So there's an added obstacle that makes it more difficult to initiate such a basic relationship - let alone a abusive one.