but I wonder how long it will be before the military bigwigs shrug and say, "we've been against women in the service all along, for their own protection."

You neglect to mention that this cover-up is related not only to cases like Tillman's, but also cases like those in the military academies.

Thanks for the article. I hadn't heard anything about LaVena Johnson till now, and I bet a lot of others hadn't, either.

Outrage is certainly within me as well, but for now I simply weep.

I have over 5 decades as a feminist (equal rights and equal treatment - my definition for the trolls who will certainly show up) but, after so much of my life, to see a US institution acting this way makes me truly despair.

I joined the Army in 1977 and spent two miserable years with many dregs of society. The standards for joining the Army are still the lowest of all the services. One thing I vividly recall during AIT in Fort Gordon Georgia, was an instructor, a Sgt First Class, telling the class of all males, the reasons women enter the military. To paraphrase what he said: "the only reason women join the army is because they are too ugly to get laid, or they are nymphomaniacs, or they are queer." I was only 19 at the time and the product of a rather narrow minded family, but even then I was amazed and outraged by what he said. Of course, being a puny E-2, there wasn't anything I could say. It seemed remarkable to me that he was able to reduce the complexity of a female person to sex. I don't know for sure, but the evidence seems to suggest that many of those males believed what he said to be absolute truth, and have gone on to bequeath that sentiment to this day. This story is sad. And ugly.

This is a tragic story.

Paraphrasing Prof. Simon Blackburn: How do you convince a ruthless, powerful, yet entirely realistic enemy, not to invade your body? Blackburn’s short answer could be: You don’t.

Some argue that wars are the last resort of diplomacy. Some believe that, on the contrary, war underpins diplomacy.... and in many cases, entire political programs.

The military machine supports and is supported by the most mainstream political power, that is, politics which, last time I checked, were a bunch of old white males with a woman-chaser mentality. Think Clinton-Lewinsky, think Spitzer-Dupré, think Bernier-Couillard, and even Rachel Marsden!

On the other hand, powerful female politicians in WASP America have been used to repress their normal femininity under a protective stiffness (Tatcher, Rice...)

What does that all mean? While the army kills so-called "enemies" (military and civilian alike) to keep the political-economical status quo, it likewise assassinates anything that is considered "other" to this male-oriented status-quo. By extension, we are talking about women.

These soldiers are being trained to disrespect and, alas!, murder anything that doesn't look exactly like themselves or their conservative boys club head masters.

Women in military are as unprotected as any civilian Iraqi walking down the streets. Because, to Army officials in the heart of this conservative institution, we are all just the same unprotected "other", asking for violence by the mere fact that we have something they would like to take by force.

The law of the jungle.

I wonder if it would make the news or be reported as suicide if a woman drugged a male soldier, raped his ass with her rifle and blew his brains out.

white or black? my guess? black. why? no one cares - either way. we all hope the barack generation will stop this. we can't stop abysmal crimes like this but the least we can do is investigate. and if you can take it, look at this sweet little face,
http://mirroronamerica.blogspot.com/2007/02/who-murdered-army-pvt-lavena-johnson.html

Now you know why I don't "support the troops".

And nearly speechless.

Who else has forwarded this to the msm outlets? I'll do it daily if need be.

... for bringing this horrible and tragic story to Salon. I read an article months ago by Ann Wright and could barely believe I'd not heard it in the MSM. Till I thought about it for a few more seconds. I think it's quite true that all the crimes that are endemic to our woman-hating society are going to be present in the military and, for the reasons one commenter already stated, probably more so. But it is contemptible beyond reason for the military to cover it up, to inflict a secondary, grevious blow on a family that has already suffered a terrible loss.

Bless the commenter who says s/he will forward the story to MSM and I hope many more do the same. I think it's a great idea and I'll do it too. RIGHT NOW!

Thanks again Kate.

After finding out during WWII that only about 15% of soldiers would actually fire at the enemy, the US army started a program to dehumanize/brutalize/indoctrinate soldiers in order to increase the percentage. By using humanoid targets instead of bull's eyes on the firing range, and a host of other psychological training techniques, that percentage is up to something like 90. (pardon me for not including a link; perhaps some other reader can supply one)

We are supposed to be proud of these men in uniform who can pull the trigger on a ten-year-old child whom they believe "is a threat".

Are we also supposed to be shocked that some of them can also brutally rape and kill a fellow (female) soldier?

We delude ourselves.

Fellow lefties, if you're too young to remember My Lai, never encountered an historical account of the Red Army's ceremonial procession through what was left of the Third Reich, and unfamiliar with the Junker and the hereditary officer corps of Germany, this should serve to remind you of one fact. The history of the left has been one long struggle against standing military organizations. It was even important enough to make it into the American Bill of Rights, in the form of the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution. The Founding Fathers argued eloquently against standing armies, being all too aware of the abuses that are an integral part of the entire idea of placing deadly weapons into the hands of psychopaths and the dregs of society that were willing to forgo a normal life in the hopes that they would get to rape, pillage and plunder. Militias were their attempt to eradicate this problem once and for all. Obviously the attempt failed.

A standing military's primary aim is to maintain itself. Civilian control will curtail some abuses, but once out of oversight, "boys will be boys", whether fragging their own commanding officer or expressing their own resentment of their intellectual and social inferiority and putting those uppity women who dared to infiltrate the sacred military halls with the aid of "those communists in Congress" in their place. Fascism, communism, mercantilism, the ideology simply doesn't matter. With the aid of muscular Christianity to affirm their moral superiority, the current military establishment effectively does an end run around congressional oversight and continues the age old campaign to make the world a better place by shooting, raping or imprisoning anyone in it's power who expresses their dissatisfaction with the status quo.

The Army ain't our friends, people. Any young women overcome with the desire to serve their fellow man in uniform stand in desperate need of good advice, counseling, and reminding that once out of the States, laws don't apply to military personnel.