Six Questions for Eli Flyer on Military Recruiting and Abuses in Iraq

By Ken Silverstein

Eli Flyer retired as a Pentagon senior military analyst in 1979 and has since served as a consultant to U.S. armed forces on personnel issues. He has spent the last fifty years analyzing the relationship between military recruiting and military misconduct; of note is his 2003 report to the Pentagon, “Reducing the Threat of Destructive Behavior by Military Personnel” (PDF). Looking back on the shock and outrage expressed by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld when the Abu Ghraib scandal came to light, it's interesting to note that at around the same time U.S. soldiers were torturing Iraqi prisoners at that prison, Flyer was delivering a report to the Pentagon stating that some U.S. troops were in positions “where destructive acts could have the most serious consequences.” Clearly, people should be paying attention to what Flyer has to say. He replied to a series of questions on the links between poor recruitment practices and abuses against Iraqi civilians.

1. We've seen a series of news reports about abuses of Iraqi civilians by U.S. military personnel in Iraq. Are you surprised by this type of misconduct?

Not too much new here. I have a scrapbook of news clips collected during the 1980s and early 1990s that show members of the military committing rapes, serial murders, sabotage, and the like—in large numbers. They didn't get that much attention. Actually, the number of news clips has been declining in recent years as recruit quality has generally improved. The military services, however, still continue to bring in sizable numbers of new recruits who should have been denied enlistment. About one-third of new recruits do not complete their initial tours of duty, with most of the discharges occurring for poor behavior and performance. The culprit here is poor screening procedures in selecting new recruits. It must come as a surprise to many people that our troops commit such acts, given all the hype concerning their bravery, patriotism, and all-American-boy attributes. So there is a real letdown when a number of them are shown to be real screw-ups who should never have been enlisted in the first place.

2. Don't the military services weed out applicants with criminal offense records who are more likely to get in trouble while on active duty?

Many applicants who are accepted for service have committed serious misdemeanors, and some even have felony convictions, even though the evidence is clear that these recruits are more likely than those with "clean" records to show be behavior problems while on active duty. To enlist with a conviction for a criminal offense, an applicant must receive a "moral" waiver. The process involved in issuing a waiver—evaluating reference recommendations for enlistment—is a weak one that has little value for screening purposes. It needs to be fixed. Since recruits who enlist with a moral waiver generally have higher discharge rates than other recruits, they should certainly receive more intensive screening for enlistment than they do now. A number of the men who have been accused of abuses against civilians in Iraq had histories that should have raised red flags. For example, former soldier Steven Green, who is accused of raping and killing an Iraqi girl and her family, enlisted with a moral waiver for at least two drug- or alcohol- related offenses. He committed a third alcohol-related offense just before enlistment, which led to jail time, though this offense may not have been known to the Army when he enlisted. News accounts say Green was a high school dropout (with a GED certificate) and suggest he was a seriously maladjusted young man. A limited background check during the recruitment process would likely have provided information showing he should not receive a moral waiver.

3. Doesn't the pressure to meet recruiting quotas also affect the quality of those brought into the military?

It is widely known that some recruiters will go to extraordinary lengths to help qualify applicants for military service. Providing a fraudulent high school diploma, ignoring an arrest record or a history of mental disorder, coaching for an aptitude test or medical exam—all these unacceptable recruiting practices, and many more, will be used by some recruiters to meet their quotas. A shortage of applicants leads to an increased pressure on recruiters to disregard regulations and use unacceptable methods to meet their quotas.

4. Do recruitment shortages also affect policy at higher levels?

Most definitely. Research studies performed over many years have shown that high school dropouts are more likely to present disciplinary problems and to be discharged early when compared with recruits who have high school diplomas. For this reason, Pentagon policy places a limit of 10 percent on the number of enlistees who don't have a high school diplomas. The Army has faced recruitment shortages since 1999—well before the negative effects of Iraq duty on enlistments. As a result, the Army asked for and received Department of Defense approval to bring in an additional 4,000 “GEDers”each year who would not count against the 10 percent ceiling for this group. The recruiting crunch continues, and to meet recruitment goals this year, the Army has received permission to bring in up to 8,000 additional GEDers. This will, of course, increase the number of losses due to unsuitable behavior.

5. What is the Pentagon doing to develop more effective enlistment screening procedures?

It has long been recognized that applicants for service who enlist with behavioral problems are at increased risk for substandard behavior and early discharge. Starting over 20 years ago, the Department of Defense invested over 10 million dollars in developing a pre-service behavioral questionnaire that would be used to screen out those applicants most likely to do poorly in military service. The Adaptability Screening Profile (ASP), the proven product of this research effort, was readied for use as a screening device for all service applicants starting in 1989. The military services, however, rejected its use because they were concerned that it would disqualify a small number of recruits with high school diplomas. They have paid the price since for this decision with higher discharge rates. The ASP also has value for moral waiver screening purposes, but the military services have shown little interest in this application, since it would reduce the number of offenders available for military service.

6. Are there any negative consequences in rejecting large numbers of potential recruits for unsatisfactory behavior?

I believe so. But while being turned down for enlistment is an unpleasant experience, it certainly doesn't compare with the trauma associated with being subsequently discharged from military service for behavioral reasons. It should also be noted that military personnel receive weapons training and there is some evidence that recruits discharged for unsuitable behavior have a higher post-service arrest rate than do those who are discharged normally. I once had a scrapbook with news clips of their crimes after service, and it was pretty full, too.

[More Washington Babylon]

[Contact Ken Silverstein]

[About Washington Babylon]