Efficiency SHARP: Sexual Assault In The Army
The number of sexual assaults in the United States Army continues to increase. The new integration of females into previously male-only units is a large part of this. Leaders in these units are not prepared or equipped to handle the new challenges presented by integration. Sexual harassment and assault occur because all Soldiers come from different backgrounds. Our current approach to responding to sexual harassment and assaults through the SHARP program does help educate Soldiers on the difference between right and wrong, however, its major shortcoming is in the reporting system itself. This was evident in an incident that occurred in my unit. The best way to end sexual violence in the Army is a combination of increasing leader involvement, particularly in newly integrated combat units, and enforcing a zero-tolerance policy with harsh punishments for the Soldiers involved. In 2016 female Soldiers began integrating into units that were previously closed to them. While the integration began, it did not seem as though the SHARP program was updated to coincide with it. This antiquated SHARP program is not equipped to handle the influx of SHARP cases that are a direct correlation to the new integration. The problem with the current evolution of the SHARP program does not lie in the education aspect of SHARP but in the implementation of the reporting portion. In particular, cultivating an environment in these newly integrated units where these females feel comfortable reporting issues and incidents.
This shortcoming of the program is clearly demonstrated in a situation that happened in my unit. A few years ago we had a female platoon medic for a short time. During one of our longer field rotations she was being regularly harassed by Soldiers in the company. It was clearly bothering her but she didn’t want to seem weak or vulnerable so she refused to report it. Furthermore, the SHARP representative at the time was a male, and it didn’t seem as though the female soldier in question was comfortable reporting to him. Eventually, people spoke up on her behalf, and to stop the situation she was moved from the company. Her replacement was about to ETS and did not care about the soldiers in his care nearly as much. This is the toxicity that pervades in the combat arms community. Rather than stop the issue before it went too far, or hold the soldiers responsible accountable, the medic was removed from our platoon and replaced with a “safer” yet less competent choice. Furthermore, the soldiers who were involved were routinely Soldiers who were already causing problems in other areas. In this way because of the poor and immature actions of a few individuals, we lost a highly skilled and knowledgeable medic, effectively decreasing the lethality and readiness of our platoon. According to the former secretary of the army Mark Murphy, “how can we be ready to face challenges the world presents if there is not trust within our ranks”. Unit Cohesion is built on trust and confidence in your peers. If people can’t learn to respect their fellow soldiers, regardless of their gender, then the overall success of the mission can easily be degraded.
To sum things up, there is no clear solution to fixing the issues that face our Army. A good starting point would certainly be to hold not only leaders more accountable for the actions of their subordinates. Furthermore, those who cannot learn how to act need to be removed from the army altogether, rather than having their actions swept under the rug by superiors who are scared to admit that there is a serious problem in our ranks. The best starting point in my mind is at the soldier level. Ensuring that soldiers can care for and respect their peers, regardless of where they come from is.
