An intriguing question is why the problem of sexual assault in the U.S. military has persisted so long and not effectively been dealth with? It's often pointed out how integration of our military forces was achieved overnight with the stroke of a pen. (That perception is erroneous and exaggerated, but nevertheless "more or less" true.) What's different?
I find clues in the composition of our military forces. Could it be that the switch to an all-volunteer force, approved by cowering politicians to save their reputations (and see how well that worked out!) has created a force isolated unto itself, a "warrior" culture that feels entitled to make its own rules? One that - not just in matters of assault, but in broader ways as well - scoffs at "civilian control?" What about that McChrystal guy, for example? Is there a difference between him and, say, George C. Marshall?
Nowadays, we often hear complaints from the military and their groupies that the civilian population doesn't really know much about the military, hasn't experienced military service, isn't making sacrifices -- true enough, and damaging to the social fabric. But the reverse is also true -- our servicemen and women are also isolated, and don't know much about civilians.
In this area, at least, we can do something to slow or reverse the trend toward increasingly segmented, isolated, self-interested subcultures. It's called conscription.