NYT’s Part 4 “War Torn” On Domestic Abuse

It may be indicative of the criticism the New York Times justly received for its previous installments of “War Torn”, which were featured in the higher circulation Sunday editions, that the latest appears in today’s lower circulation Friday edition, before a lower circulation long weekend holiday.

Part 4 of “War Torn” is titled, “When Strains on Military Families Turn Deadly,” focusing on domestic abuse. The reporters are clear that:

It is difficult to know how complete The Times’s findings are. What is clear, though, is that these homicides occurred at a time when the military was trying to improve its handling of domestic violence.

But, that comes 1189 words into the, again quite lengthy, 4504 word article.

Before that we’re treated to an opening hoary tale of an Army vet of Iraq murdering his wife. Then,

Pentagon officials say that wartime has not derailed their efforts to make substantive improvements in the way that the military tackles domestic violence.

They say they have, for example, offered more parenting and couples classes, provided additional victims advocates and afforded victims greater confidentiality in reporting abuses.

But interviews with members of the task force, as well as an examination of cases of fatal domestic violence and child abuse, indicate that wartime pressures on military families and on the military itself have complicated the Pentagon’s efforts.

The article, also, presents its own hesitation regarding its investigation:

But an examination by The Times found more than 150 cases of fatal domestic violence or child abuse in the United States involving service members and new veterans during the wartime period that began in October 2001 with the invasion of Afghanistan.

In more than a third of the cases, The Times determined that the offenders had deployed to Afghanistan or Iraq or to the regions in support of those missions. In another third, it determined that the offenders never deployed to war. And the deployment history of the final third could not be ascertained.

Much of the rest of the article is comprised of criticisms of the handling of a few specific cases, and comments by experts that more needs to be done.

That is probably true, as the military has acknowledged and exerts itself to do.

I spent several hours researching studies of spousal and domestic abuse, which doesn’t make me an expert. It does appear that the incidence is higher in the military, adjusted for demographics, than among civilians. However, the incidence in the military has declined since the 1990’s, when the military stepped up its prevention, treatment and punishments, although increasing some since 2003, particularly among Reserve and Guard troops called up to serve.

It’s still a relatively small number and percentage of troops. Studies, further, don’t evince a causal connection to experiencing war, but include a cluster of other factors such as youth, separations from family, early marriages, and alcohol. There's a wide range of degrees of severity of domestic abuse, ranging from yelling to shoving to physical attack, that range not presented. There’s, as well, a wide range of psychological theories as to predispositions to domestic violence, as perpetrator or victim, that are not presented.

The NYT’s series, again, tries to create its own “statistics” and stir, while failing to present scholarly analyses and placing the NYT’s presentation in informative context.

It is interesting, for example, that the incidence of domestic abuse is higher among civilian homosexual couples, and that the incidence of female on male abuse is underreported due to several factors.

This doesn’t excuse the primary type of male on female abuse, but does raise the issue of its exclusion from the NYT’s lengthy piece, which would provide greater context.

It is, again, interesting that the NYT’s Part 4 of “War Torn” is seemingly downplayed in placement, and stretches to treat domestic and spousal abuse, failing to come up with a scandal that would merit the extensive amount of ink devoted to it.

What seems clear is that the military appears to have devoted comparably far more energies to dealing with the problems than has civilian life, which might have provided the New York Times with a truly interesting article, rather than such an incomplete one. The NYT's certainly had enough space and words to have done so, if that were its purpose.