“Personally, I do not think it is unreasonable top expect a much lower rate of criminal conduct in the military, considering the regimentation of military personnel.”

Not sure what regimentation has to do with it. This is a section of our population that is fighting in wars and under considerable stress. The detailed statistics I’ve seen only go back to 2004, when the SAPRO was created, and I would be interested in seeing what the numbers were prior to 2001.

How do the per-capita statistics compare for other high-stress jobs (firemen, police, etc.)?

We are also in an era with many more women in the military (4 percent in 1970, 16 percent in 2010) and they are beginning to move into high-tension combat situations. Has that affected the overall statistics? Note that the report states women who are deployed have more problems than those who are not.

Now remember, this was how the original news article ran (italics mine):

Pentagon’s annual report on sexual assault shows alarming rise

On Tuesday, the Pentagon will release the annual report on sexual assaults in the military, which shows some startling numbers.

While the report will show that the number of reported assaults in fiscal year 2012 rose only 6 percent to 3,374 — up from 3,192 a year before — the number of people who made an anonymous claim that they were sexually assaulted but never reported the attack skyrocketed from 19,000 in FY11 to 26,000 in FY12.

The only thing missing was a “Drudge Siren.”

And yet when you look at the actual report, the same number for 2007 was 34,200. This kind of screws up the whole meme. Where was the media when the rate “plummeted” (or whatever the opposite of “skyrocketed” would be) from 34,200 to 19,000?

And does anybody wonder why this huge drop and new rise happened? Or what the larger pattern looks like?

Isn’t that the important question?

These are barracks crimes, sometimes boot camp assaults by men in authority over their victims, they can’t even be blamed on the stress of combat. That sex crimes (or any other serious assaults against shipmates or comrades!) could be carried out at anywhere near civilian levels, and that they may be covered up by officers to protect careers and reputations is a scandal.

I served in the military, and regardless of what my politics are, I do have pride in my service. These people have befouled it, insulted it, and they must be sought out, condemned and punished. My first reaction to this when I first heard about it a few months ago was “We really need to get to the bottom of this.”, not, “This is what we need to discredit the military and screw those Republicans.” Instead, what I get from our resident patriot is “This must be a Democrat lie, we don’t need to take it too seriously”.

We know now this story isn’t being made up, as you point out, it IS a recognized problem, even by military authorities from SECDEF to CJCS on down. But what really pisses me off is that TB feels the need to make excuses and try to divert attention from all this because he sees some leftist conspiracy behind it, as he sees in everything he doesn’t like to admit to himself. That turns my stomach. And the implication that I’m so ignorant or biased or subversive that I can’t see that is intolerable, particularly considering its source.

Don’t you agree…?

2. They want to eliminate sex crimes entirely.

3. There is nothing in the article that compares military and civilian sex crime stats.

4. Nothing in the article contradicts the stats in TB’s post.

Personally, I do not think it is unreasonable top expect a much lower rate of criminal conduct in the military, considering the regimentation of military personnel.

I have no doubt that the military is mishandling the situation as they tend to mishandle nearly everything that is not purely military. Of course they need to punish offenders but I suspect that the fraternization regulations are setting them up for failure.

Meanwhile, you have deftly sidestepped and made absolutely no effort to refute the main point I made in my post:

Without altering one documented fact, or lying, TB has managed to convey to his audience the subliminal message that the entire content of the original post is exaggerated and probably irrelevant, and that it is probably a deliberate obfuscation by political enemies of the military determined to discredit it and emasculate it. There is no epidemic of rape in the military, its all liberal lawyer lies.

Like any good propagandist, you know it is not necessary to convince anyone of a lie as long as you can make them doubt the truth.

Spinnnnnn….

Maybe I should be getting my news from more objective sources, like

The Business Insider

You seem to forget, TB, everyone here besides me and thee knows how to read and can put together a Google query. We also have functioning memories. You’re just digging yourself in deeper and deeper.

Remember this?

Nobody else here has.

You pulled up three MSNBC news stories and one from the Daily Beast. The stories contained one significant statistical statement:

The Pentagon will release its annual report on sexual assaults in the military on Tuesday afternoon, which shows an increase in reported assaults in fiscal year 2012 — up from 3,192 a year before. Furthermore, the number of people who made an anonymous claim that they were sexually assaulted but never reported the attack skyrocketed from 19,000 in FY11 to 26,000 in FY12.

You have now been told everything you’re supposed to know by MSNBC, and that’s fine with you. It’s been obvious for a while you can’t deal with much else.

For the rest of you, or at least a few of you, here’s the chart from Page 26 of the introduction to the report (printed page numbers):

The introduction is what most media members read. Note the data points included, and note the data point the media left out. The entire graph implies a somewhat more complicated issue that needs more looking into.

And from Page 16:

• The risk of contact sexual violence for military and civilian women is the same, after controlling for age and marital status differences between these groups.

• With few exceptions, the past year and lifetime prevalence (occurrence) of IPV, sexual violence, and stalking in the civilian and military populations are quite similar, with no statistically significant differences.

• Active Duty women were significantly less likely than civilian women to indicate that they experienced IPV in the 3 years prior to the survey.

• Active Duty women were less likely to experience stalking than civilian women.

• A deployment history appears to impact Active Duty women’s experience of IPV and sexual violence. Active duty women with a deployment history had higher rates of IPV and sexual violence than women without a deployment history. These differences appeared in the past 3-year and lifetime prevalence rates, but were not present in the past-year prevalence rates. This suggests that IPV and sexual violence are problems that may develop over time for Active Duty women who have deployed.

(IPV = Intimate Partner Violence)

This does not mean there is no problem. This means we are being told there’s a much, much worse problem than there is.

There’s a political agenda that wants us to think our military is a horde of raping maniacs. This is not new, and MSNBC stories to this effect are not unexpected.

Always do your own research. And thinking.