Fox News' Justin Fishel's report that Army officials felt Bradley Manning, the WikiLeaker, was unfit to serve but used him anyway because of a desperate need, if true, is very disturbing about the lax security and lack of needed personnel.

Army investigators have concluded Iraq war commanders in desperate need of intelligence analysts ignored recommendations from low-level military officials at Fort Drum who said Pfc. Bradley Manning -- the accused source of the WikiLeaks document scandal -- was not fit for deployment because of behavioral problems, a military official tells Fox News.

"There were people who said he shouldn't deploy," the official told Fox on the condition of anonymity. But because of the intense need for intelligence specialists, Manning was brought to Iraq anyway.

As a soldier in New York he had such a violent temper he threw chairs at colleagues and shouted at superiors--behavior which would immediately result in a firing, perhaps even assault charges for the former, in private employment and certainly disciplinary action in the Armed Forces. Once in Iraq he had "personal relationship problems," undoubtedly a euphemism referring to his sexual orientation and was even demoted after a fight with a soldier. So why did the Army retain Manning?

Army officials say it's understandable that there was a shortage of people who could perform these duties. Low-level analysts have to pass intense background checks and they have to score high on the military's entrance exam. As one Army official put it, "only 25 percent of the American population is qualified to serve in the Army, and out of those it's an even higher cut to be an intelligence analyst."

And what did Manning think of all this?

"You had people working 14 hours a day... every single day... people stopped caring after three weeks," Manning wrote. "Weak servers, weak logging, weak physical security, weak counter-intelligence... a perfect storm."

What a horrible storm; its devastating effects will remain for years.