Casualties of war. The war doesn't end when they come home. Stories like these are a big part of why I avoided a combat roll in the military. And this is another sign that we didn't learn a goddamn thing from Vietnam.
The soldiers seemed to be suffering classic symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder: explosions of anger, suicidal and homicidal ideation, flashbacks, nightmares and insomnia.I was going to make a joke about how I'm already suffering from all of these things - before I read the rest of the blurb. The downturn in the economy is going to mean an upturn in recruiting as more and more people find themselves without good alternatives. Hell, I'm even considering it myself if my current job disappears (and it very well might), seriously enough that I'm getting up at 5AM every day for PT so I can physically qualify for entry to basic. I'm not joking. It's important not to lose sight of the fact that military service, especially in a time of war, can be extremely stressful. At least we have an administration now that (I believe) will honestly care about this stuff. Unfortunately, there's a lot of institutional momentum in the military. It was slowly improving in the 90s, and the last guys we had in charge pushed it back the other way, HARD. Thanks for the link.
As much as I have to admit it. These issues will arise for both. Organizatins and individualisms to find a peace of mind about accomplishments. The largest point is to stay stable and seek help before its to late. Most actions should declare some catagorialization. That way. Its understood and meet with treatment. However decleration of such issues could hinder jod oppertunities and set life in tailspin. But if its true, help is the best way. Lets hope jobs aren't limited becuase populations will go up regardless. Thats means job oppertunities will hit and miss. Lets not be easy targets and honorably keep soliders in right mind states. Less communication equals problems. Wrong communication equals understanding and right communications solves issues.
I'm emailing some buddies to see what their experiences have been--not the frontline experiences, but the experiences that deal directly with postdeployment counseling. It seems that there needs to be serious and swift changes in policy and culture in how these are dealt with. The entangled issues seem to be 1) traumatic brain injuries 2) PTSD 3) the tough-guy culture disencouraging treatment 4) the military medical system's inability to properly treat.
Last year some time, perhaps when the film In the Valley of Elah came out, NPR had an Iraq war vet now attending an Ivy League law school give an editorial. In it he very calmly and thoughtfully--mildly, even--condemned the presentation of combat vets as damaged goods (while admitting that the current trend was an improvement over Vietnam era treatment). In the process he cited statistics indicating that vets were in fact less afflicted by mental illness, more stable as employees, etc. This was so at odds with the common perception that I spent a little time looking for the data, but couldn't find it. I'll try again, but anybody else out there is welcome to help out.
Certainly that soldiers could be viewed as damaged goods is a dangerous and unwanted supposition. That adds to the complexity of the problem as well. That goes to the cultural problem I noted above--that people who suffer from some of this are lesser. Effective treatment would go a long way towards correcting that.
But it's government run healthcare and therefore superior. In all seriousness, I wonder why this seems to be happening so much. These wars don't seem as gruesome as others and I wonder what is causing this.
I'm not sure how gruesome these wars are--I haven't seen much actual footage. The descriptions some friends have given me and that the article I posted gives are pretty gruesome. We could point out a number of factors, but I do wonder too. Things I hear sometimes are that the increased level of communication to home makes it harder to compartmentalize the experience; that the public doesn't feel much connection to the war because of either the media or the lack of a draft; that these wars have dealt with a strange duality of lopsided force and an unseen/unknown enemy. The other apparent answer is that it isn't actually worse.
Well, part of the problem is the social stigma associated with getting mental health care in the military. The article itself points out that the Army preferred, at least in this particular case, to treat the soldier's problems as a disciplinary issue, rather than a health issue. He was even charged with defacing government property for his suicide note. They put forth one possible explanation as to why the Army might behave this way - it's cheaper. A soldier diagnosed with PTSD gets disability. A soldier drummed out with disciplinary problems gets squat. I think there's a real issue - and this has been a problem for people suffering from mental problems brought on by war for decades, if not longer - with stuff like PTSD being viewed as a new word for "cowardice". I don't know that it is less gruesome. We just don't see it. And advances in medical technology and logistics means that soldiers who might have died before end up "just" being disabled now. http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/528624 Agreed. Many people come thru war OK, but some do not. Some people have physical injuries, and some mental, but someone suffering from PTSD is no more "damaged" (and no less!) than one who had an amputation. It's a real problem, but with proper treatment these people can function just fine. I certainly think that arguing for better health care for those who are suffering from PTSD should not be mistaken for believing most soldiers have PTSD.
Honestly, I don't know how anyone comes home from combat without PTSD. Even soldiers who don't participate directly in combat situations suffer all kinds of psychological traumas just from being in the theater of war. Emphasis mine. My impressions are based on what I've read, heard on NPR, and discussed with friends and family who served, but based on that information I think your list above is a very good one. This is absolutely a gruesome war, and the fact that the public generally isn't aware of its horrors probably only contributes to returning soldiers' feelings of alienation. The part about the unknown enemy is also worth reiterating. I would think the sheer confusion of not being able to communicate with the locals, not being able to tell those you're fighting from those you're protecting, as well as not having a clear overarching mission could all contribute to the trauma.
A friend of mine is married to a man who has served two tours in Iraq. The treatment at their base in Texas was non-existent. He has since changed units, and the treatment he is getting in Mississippi is better, but not like what he would get if he were in the private sector. This is a problem that is going to haunt us for years.
Agreed on all counts. I think the suggestion, made in some of your links, that the doors have been opened wider (allowing people in who are...suboptimal in their psychological/emotional readiness for combat) because of the pressure to keep recruitment numbers is probably a factor complicating treatment, too, since it adds to the complexity of what the clinical personnel are facing. As for the impact of combat on soldiers/troops in Iraq, IIRC it was predicted from day one, when analysts spoke of the nature of occupation and urban combat waged against forces hard to distinguish from civilians, and who deliberately use that to effect. Add to that the kind of pressure that comes from prisoner abuse and I wouldn't be surprised if the "normal" effects of combat haven't been made harder to weather. I'd also add that Shay's book on PTSD (that Mel and I recommended to you a couple of years ago, I think) suggested--based on the accounts of combat veterans--that a key feature of PTSD among Vietnam vets was the sense that "what is right" had been subverted by the nature of combat there. There are features in Iraq that set that up: prisoner abuse, the bait and switch WMD rationale for the war to begin with, stop loss measures...
I'd prefer to keep that a separate issue, but I would like to point out that in our current system it's not doctors making health care decisions, it's an insurance company drone. The problem is that, mostly, institutionally the military is not interested in the "wellness" of it's soldiers. It basically boils down to "can he fight? No? Then get him to the point that he can, and if you can't, he's of no use to us". Obviously, there are dedicated individuals at all levels of military health care who are not like this, but institutionally, that's the way it is. And there's a special stigma against mental health problems.
A few years back, the New Yorker had an article on WWII vets, comparing them to Viet Nam vets. There was obviously cases of PTSD amonb WWII vets (until I went away to college, I thought it was normal for adult men to wake up screaming once in awhile, like my father did occasionally when he started to relive his role in the invasion of Normandy), but the way the problem was framed was different in the 50s than it was in the 70s and 80s. http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2004/11/08/041108fa_fact1 Now, I think the explanation in Bungadiri's paragraph is more plausible than some of what Malcolme Gladwell reports, but still... this is an interesting article.
I, along with everyone else in my unit, must have been asked a hundred times if I exhibited any symptoms of PTSD when I out-processed from Iraq. I was asked my unit in Iraq, doctors in Iraq, doctors at Fort Dix, and again at my guard unit after I resumed drilling. We, the soldiers, were were beaten over the head with contact information for people to call if we ever started to exhibit symptoms of PTSD. What's more, whatever next of kin name the solider provided to the Family Readiness Group received briefings and literature from health care professionals about soldiers coming home, the re-adjustment process, and PTSD. (i.e. both my wife and my mother knew what to look for and knew what numbers to call) I've personally dealt with the local VA here in College Station and the big VA hospital in Temple, TX (you get free medical care for a year after you get back, so I had my wisdom teeth removed). I went there for dental stuff, and the VA made a point of asking me if I exhibited any signs of PTSD, every visit. This was late 2006. I wholeheartedly disagree with the notion that the military "doesn't care about the 'wellness' of soldiers" beyond their ability to fight. There is, however, a stigma against those who've reported suffering PTSD symptoms when it comes to promotions. Many, but not all, think that you can't put someone who's already 'broken' under the strain of combat into a leadership position, where lives could be lost if they 'break' again.
Well, obviously there are a lot of individuals - at all levels - who do care. But overall, the system seems to be failing a lot of soldiers. And I do think part of that is due to the culture of the military. I haven't (yet?) served, and I wouldn't presume to say that my experiences in ROTC in college or working on military bases as a contractor are in any way, shape, or form comparable to a tour in a war zone, but I have experienced pretty fully military culture. I'm trying to be careful to stick to using the word "institutional", because there are a lot of people - including those at a high level of command - who are trying to fix the problem. But the problem is still there. Obviously, people who have experienced PTSD may be unsuitable for certain jobs. So would people with physical injuries. The articles seem to show a pattern of soldiers asking for, and not receiving, the help they need. That is a problem.
Yes! I think it was Lewis Black who made a joke about the USPS dropping to 5 delivery days and how the last thing postal employees need is extra time to sit around and think about things.
The stigma issue is still there even here on this side of the border. Even then, one gets the impression that the system has been improving.