07-29-2009, 08:07 PM
Hi,
Mandatory psych evaluations *might* identify potential problems. Mandatory psych programs *might* improve the situation. But, as has been pointed out, there is strong resistance to psych help in the military. It is a well known cliché that psych programs only work if the subject wants to change -- and that may be the hard step.
I often wonder if the all-volunteer concept might not be contributing to these problems. An army based on the draft comes closer to getting a cross section of the population. An all volunteer force might be selecting for the more aggressive individuals. But that's just a gut feel -- I have no data to support t.
--Pete
Quote: . . . is if the US government is responsible . . .Indirectly, yes.
Quote: . . . and more important what they should do about it.That's a hard question to answer. As Gnollguy pointed out, there is no one-size-fits-all solution. Not everybody who has been in combat suffers PTSD, and not everybody who suffers PTSD becomes violent. In this particular instance, it appears that the severe problem occurred in 0.3% of the population. That seems very high. Had that been the case post WW II, there would have been tens of thousands and a crime spree of epic proportions -- it did not happen.
Mandatory psych evaluations *might* identify potential problems. Mandatory psych programs *might* improve the situation. But, as has been pointed out, there is strong resistance to psych help in the military. It is a well known cliché that psych programs only work if the subject wants to change -- and that may be the hard step.
I often wonder if the all-volunteer concept might not be contributing to these problems. An army based on the draft comes closer to getting a cross section of the population. An all volunteer force might be selecting for the more aggressive individuals. But that's just a gut feel -- I have no data to support t.
--Pete
How big was the aquarium in Noah's ark?