Society's Standards, Not Military's, in Decline

It wasn’t enough for John Kerry to insult the intellectual capacity of the soldiers in Iraq. Congressman Marty Meehan, D-MA, who serves on the House Armed Services Committee, has now added “criminals” to the list of derogatory terms used by Democrats to describe our troops. That is what passes as support for the armed services in the new Congress. Rather than praise the military for giving some who have made mistakes the chance to improve their skills and future employment prospects, Congressman Meehan puts a negative spin to recently published Pentagon recruiting statistics and warns that the military is filled with criminals.

Are military recruiting standards being lowered due to the strain of 5 years of the War on Terror and “mounting casualties”? That is the question raised in an AP story reported by Fox News today titled “US Military Letting in More Recruits With Criminal Records.” According to Defense Department statistics, the number of Army and Marine recruits with criminal records requiring waivers for military service nearly doubled between 2003 and 2006, the AP reports. Congressman Meehan argues that the rise in the number of recruits with criminal records demonstrates a lowering of standards by the armed services that is the direct result of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Congressman Meehan stated:

The data is crystal clear. Our armed forces are under incredible strain and the only way that they can fill their recruiting quotas is by lowering their standards. By lowering standards, we are endangering the rest of our armed forces and sending the wrong message to potential recruits across the country.

Do the statistics actually reflect what the Congressman alleges? According to Pentagon statistics, the armed services provided “moral waivers” by service branch as follows:

Army – 12.7% needed waivers in 2003, 20% needed waivers in 2006.
Marines – Slightly less than 50% needed waivers in 2003, slightly more than 50% needed waivers in 2006.
Navy – Less than 18% needed waivers in 2003, 18% needed waivers in 2006.
Air Force – More than 8% needed waivers in 2003, 8% needed waivers in 2006, trending downward.
Overall Average – 20% needed waivers in 2003, 25% needed waivers in 2006.

The Pentagon report divides moral waivers into the following categories: felonies, serious and minor non-traffic offenses, serious and minor traffic offenses and drug offenses. These categories are intentionally broad because many states differ in what constitutes felonies or misdemeanors.

Congressman Meehan’s “crystal clear” data actually only show a 5% rise in waivers throughout the armed services between 2003 and 2006. 5% does not reflect an incredible strain or a mad rush to throw recruiting standards out in order to meet recruiting quotas. On the contrary, the high percentage for the Marine Corps is not an alarming result of lowering standards; it is caused by the strict Marines' standard drug use policy that requires waivers even for single experience marijuana use.

In defense of the waiver program, the Pentagon issued the following statement:

The waiver process recognizes that some young people have made mistakes, have overcome their past behavior, and have clearly demonstrated the potential for being productive, law-abiding citizens and members of the military.

While statistically it may appear the military is lowering recruiting standards, the explanation for the increase in moral waivers is far more attributable to the decades-long decline in national morals than to any cause/effect stemming from the War on Terror. When I was recruited for government service, the entity that recruited me had a zero tolerance policy against drug use of any kind at any time. Those who lied about recreational use in their youth were weeded out in the polygraph stage. The standard behind that policy was: in sensitive government positions involving life and death decisions and actions, anyone who could prove unstable or succumb to physical addictions that involve violating laws should be excluded without exception.

In the intervening years, however, that standard has “evolved” as fewer applicants could state with confidence that they had never used illegal narcotics of any kind. The current standard allows exceptions for recreational use of marijuana, as long as that use was no more than a few years prior to application for employment with this specific government entity. Was the change a result of this entity’s manpower-intensive contribution to the War on Terror? No, it was the result of a shrinking pool of applicants who had never experimented with drugs in their youth.

I view the change in standards as a troubling but not at all surprising trend that is impacting all employers, not merely the US Government or military. Finding recruits who have ethical standards, can successfully pass intensive background investigations, polygraphs, and psychological fitness tests, is becoming more difficult. The parental permissiveness of baby-boomers has spawned more recreational drug experimentation, growing serious criminal behavior among youth, and a moral relativism that has taught young Americans that right and wrong depend entirely on the situation and how you feel about it, not that there are clear differences between right and wrong. All forms of sexual deviance are likewise embraced and displayed as popular entertainment, further obscuring the once accepted values of self-restraint and responsibility. Criminals, once societal pariahs, have become the heroes in our popular entertainment, while our government and military are nearly always portrayed as the true villains. Drug use is portrayed as adventurous, daring, and socially enlightened. Drug lords, smugglers, and dealers, are afforded respect and glory in today’s Hollywood productions. Hollywood attaches no stigma to indulgent or illegal behavior.

One wonders how much effort Congressman Meehan has expended in fighting Hollywood’s culturally suicidal assault on American morals, or how concerned he is that Americans are subjected daily to Hollywood’s disdain and mockery of government and military personnel. If the Congressman worries about sending the wrong message to potential recruits, why not start with the anti-military messages spewing from Hollywood and his own party?

Congressman Meehan’s policy statement on Iraq includes terms he believes show support for our troops: Quagmire; Torture Accountability; Haliburton; Rifts in International Relationships; Failure; and Damaged Credibility. He is far less dedicated to improving military recruiting than he is to casting the military in a poor light in order to discredit the Bush Administration and the Iraq War.

Because generations of Americans have willingly embraced Hollywood’s values and definitions of right and wrong (i.e. there is no difference), fewer Americans are living the lives the government and military once demanded from recruits in preparation for service. The private sector is likewise facing a shortage of applicants with high standards, but unless an employer is a government contractor providing sensitive government support, background checks are shallow and polygraphs are non-existent. Thus the decline in moral standards throughout society would naturally be most visible in government and military, where security clearances and access to weaponry and intelligence reports require far more character than is expected in the private sector.

The military, to its credit and despite the AP report on Pentagon recruiting statistics, gives far more scrutiny to its recruits than the private sector, including the news media, gives to its employee applicants. To attribute the rise in moral waivers for military recruits to the strains of the War on Terror misses the larger cultural context in which recruiting occurs. The military should be applauded for working to recruit the best available representation of American culture, and not criticized because America’s culture is in decline.