war comes home

[eppie]

http://www.gazette.com/articles/iframe-590...idge-audio.html

This article (I read a translation in a dutch newspaper first) handles about murders commited by soldiers coming home from a tour in Iraq.

The brigade that was mentioned served in one of the most violent period in Iraq and while there were told to basically shoot at anything. (I think we had some discussion about that before).
Because of the high chance of becoming victim of an attack their 'defence mechanism' became 'kill them first'. Besides making many innocent victims this brigade also lost a very high amount of men during that time (114).

Now back home 10 soldiers from that brigade were responsible for 14 murders or manslaughter in Colorado springs (114 times the normal murder rate) cases and several have commited suicide or tried to.

The point of discussion here is (but it will probably become something else after two posts) is if the US government is responsible and more important what they should do about it.

This article was about one particular brigade but similar things happened on a smaller scale with soldiers from other brigades. Of course things are quieting down in Iraq so this problem will likely stop, but the great social and psychological problems of soldiers coming back from dangerous war zones have always happened.

In terms of safety of the american people the US army would have been wiser to invest in a few 100 shrinks to support soldiers that came home from Iraq instead of 5 apache helicopters.

In Holland we had similar problems (but on smaller scale of course) with soldiers returning from Srebenica and Afghanistan. In Holland many people (say 50 %) don't agree with us sending troops to these zones and it seems extra sour if you become a victim of a soldier that has been psychologically scarred by a mission you were against in the first place.

[Crusader]

The US Department of Veterans Affairs is responsible for the healthcare (including mental) of veterans. They have a 87 Billion dollar annual budget. I don't know how well they do their job, but with money like that one would think they can do a lot.

Of course, a few slip through the fingers. And then you have a PTSD killing machine on the loose. Add the readily available heavy firearms in the USA and things escalate very quickly. We (I'm also from the Netherlands), have the 'luxery' that if a PTSD soldier goes berserk, he'll have a very hard time finding a firearm and if he does manage, it will usually only be a pistol, not an assault rifle. And it's happened here as well, don't fool yourself in believing otherwise. Because of our privacy protection the background behind killings/assaults are often not mentioned in the press, after all, until the person is convicted, by which time the press lost interest in all but the most high profile cases.

Of course, we also have far fewer soldiers per capita in warzones and none in a full-scale warzone like Iraq was immediately after the invasion, so Dutch PTSD cases are also likely to be less severe in general, although some cases are known of people who started seeing Taliban behind every object and completely snapped.

But the problem is a general one. You turn people into killing machines and put them in inhumanly stressful conditions, causing mental changes triggered by pure survival instinct. Put those people back in the oh, so calm daily rural environment and you effectively planted a dodgy timebomb in your own back yard. But what is the alternative? Lock soldiers up in Guantanamo for five years being prodded out by shrinks until they check out?

[Frag]

My father served in the Army in the Vietnam era, one of his platoon-mates ended up being up being my science teacher for High School. As a PoW, he had experienced some of the Viet-Cong's most gruesome hospitality and had quite a few nervous ticks, quirks and so on. One day, as a joke, one of my classmates decided to put a surplus Vietnam-era grenade on his desk, with the pin barely in... When said teacher came in, I hear he kind of had a mental flashback/snap and proceeded to dive across the desk, hurl the grenade out the window, dive under his desk with his fingers in his ears and violently kick and bite at anyone who tried to approach. That was in the 90's, far after the close of our involvement there.

After seeing a bit of the military firsthand last year at Basic, I feel nothing but sympathy for the 4th. They were put in hell's mouth and came back pretty scorched. It appears so far that the stigma about seeing a shrink is in full effect as well as the usual military bravado approach to such matters. Given the bill that Congress is passing this week before the August recess (salary to families taking care of severely wounded vets who have had to quit their jobs to take care of them) as well as some other military bills, there might be hope that something specific can be done for them via the Colorado Senators, likely from Mike Udall (D-CO) or Representative Doug Lamborn (R-05).

As for the Vet Affairs dept... There's a lot of waste in that budget. From what I saw in the article and heard though, those soldiers weren't discharged. They were either still on active duty at home, or the period of inactive duty you are in if you serve less than 8 years active. As such, it would be up to Fort Carlson and the staff there to handle these things, if I remember correctly.

~Frag:(

[Kevin]

After seeing a bit of the military firsthand last year at Basic, I feel nothing but sympathy for the 4th. They were put in hell's mouth and came back pretty scorched. It appears so far that the stigma about seeing a shrink is in full effect as well as the usual military bravado approach to such matters.

Agreed. I served 8 years in the National Guard I did not see any combat fortunately, but I got a lot of first hand with that. My father was a marine in Vietnam, he and my oldest brother were in Desert Storm. I've got uncles and cousins that are active duty, I had 2 grandfathers who served in WWII and Korea who saw combat. My Dad and brother saw the periphery of combat in Desert Storm. My dad saw combat in nam.

They have all been in counseling but the stigma is there as you say, and it doesn't always help. I had a coworker here at the university who saw combat in Nam and desert storm, he was pretty much fine for years, great guy to be around, until he went to help with clean-up after Katrina and that made him snap. It's very difficult.

They can do stuff for PTSD (actually some of the tips and tricks for that have been very helpful for me with some of the stuff I've been dealing with) but it's very tricky.

I am hopeful that the government is doing more for these folks as you mention there is stuff in the works that will help. But there isn't a simple solution and not every solution works for every person either. It's a very individual affliction.

[kandrathe]

In terms of safety of the American people the US army would have been wiser to invest in a few 100 shrinks to support soldiers that came home from Iraq instead of 5 apache helicopters.

The article says that soldiers intentionally lie on their release forms to avoid the shrinks. It is pretty hard to help people who don't seek it or want it, and other than keep track of every soldiers "kill" record and then force them to go through counseling I'm not sure what could be done.

You are right though, that every "shooting" war has seen the return of some small percentage of soldiers whose minds are troubled. I found another discussion of the same article on a blog.

I'm feeling more like the guy who says, "A anti-military diatribe with no facts but does feed their readers preconceptions about the military."

[--Pete]

Hi,

. . . is if the US government is responsible . . .

Indirectly, yes.

. . . 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

[Swiss Mercenary]

I think the bigger differences between the Iraq war, and WWII, are the training and their targets.

Post-WWII interviews indicated that most soldiers deliberately did not shoot to kill, whereas today, improved conditioning reduced the number of those people from ~70% to 10%. The targets have also changed - before, they were mostly shooting uniformed Nazis, rather then plain-clothed insurgents.

[Frag]

The targets have also changed - before, they were mostly shooting uniformed Nazis, rather then plain-clothed insurgents.

I'm not certain this point can be overstated enough. The difficulties in fighting irregulars is well documented, but rarely is it brought up in the context of the stress it places on the regular combatants. My cousin served two tours during 2005 and 2006 in Southern Iraq and regularly has recited the incident of a crying ~8 y.o. that pulled out a RPG from under a hill of bodies to take aim at his platoon. More than anything else, that situation drove home to how little he could rely on any rationale judgment system for evaluating threats and, I believe, has made him a little paranoid. He handled the stress and situations he was placed into rather well, but it's not too far of a stretch to see how trying to assess threats coming at you from all quarters, every person you meet, in a warzone could reinforce certain behaviors and impulses that can easily turn destructive after you've left the situation.

The Snipers, in particular, were very heavily relied upon for target acquisition due to their vantage points in Iraq and the difficulty that ground soldiers had in distinguishing civilian from enemy. I was given the impression that they have a lower incidence of mental illness, even apart from their conditioning, due to the fact that they weren't doing door to door work and had the ability to watch for more obvious cues instead of dealing with the stress of trying to observe everything near you for signs of hostility. That's second-hand info from a marine and first-hand from a navy medic.

God Bless'm,
~Frag

[Kevin]

The targets have also changed - before, they were mostly shooting uniformed Nazis, rather then plain-clothed insurgents.

This I think is a big deal. This is part of why Vietnam was harder on soldiers than Desert Storm was. I know more than just my dad who served in both. Desert Storm while it didn't have a lot of combat was clear cut combat. It was uniform vs uniform if you will. The heavy fighting that happened was against the Republican Guard and that was real and intense and at times very up close combat for thousands of soldiers. The soldiers I have personally talked to that experienced both had very different reactions. The welcome home was different as well. Welcome home from Desert Storm was parades and thanks yous and cheers. Vietnam was protests. That messes with the head.

Currently folks coming home aren't seeing the protest type stuff that they saw with Vietnam, but towns aren't throwing parades for Guard and Reserve units like they did after Desert Storm either. The welcomes are warm now, people have learned that blaming the soldier for following orders is a bad thing, but in many cases they are closer to indifferent. That has an effect too. Some of that is also because this war has been long. That dulls folks at home enthusiasm.

But the fact that things were much more a policing action I think has had a major effect. But like Pete said I don't see mandatory psych stuff helping too much. I don't see it hurting anything though. It was harder to justify that everything that the soldiers did in Iraq was right.

It was much easier for the WWII vets to feel they were justified, that the lives they took really helped make millions if not billions of other lives better. Again Desert Storm is more similar, a country was invaded, we liberated that country with the backing of much of the rest of the world. We left. This war we liberated a country under false pretenses, we can't be sure the people are really better off. The enemy looks like the friend. That is so much harder on the mind.

It's a hard thing to find a real solution for. As a citizen one of the best things you can do is so appreciation for the individual soldier. You can protest the leadership all you want though. I fully understood that as a soldier and it didn't bother me, I even protested leadership while I was a soldier, right down until I got my orders and then I executed them to the fullest of my abilities, but I certainly questioned the Presidents policies let that be known then went on with my duty. Most soldiers do. But I was booed while in uniform I was also cheered a few times. The view of the military had some ups and downs between 1996 and 2004. Being jeered at for serving my country did not help my attitude one bit.

[Thecla]

I often wonder if the all-volunteer concept might not be contributing to these problems.

I think that's certainly true. If people actually had to fight in the wars they supported, they might be a lot pickier about what wars they thought were worth fighting, thus greatly reducing the incidence of PTSD.

[eppie]

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

I have the same gut feel about the draft vs volunteer army. I was happy when the decided to change from an obligatory 2 years army training to a volunteer army (about the time when it would have been my turn) but now my opinion has changed. (also because as a 2nd important effect a draft army training will help different groups in society that otherwise would never meet understand eachother better)

[eppie]

This I think is a big deal. This is part of why Vietnam was harder on soldiers than Desert Storm was.

Isn't this because Desert storm was from US side a rather easy war. Not many casualties while the Vietnam war was much more disastrous? I think a much higher chance of being killed and a higher sense of feeling vulnerable is what makes it harder on soldiers.

Currently folks coming home aren't seeing the protest type stuff that they saw with Vietnam, but towns aren't throwing parades for Guard and Reserve units like they did after Desert Storm either. The welcomes are warm now, people have learned that blaming the soldier for following orders is a bad thing, but in many cases they are closer to indifferent. That has an effect too. Some of that is also because this war has been long. That dulls folks at home enthusiasm.

Succesful wars are always easier to cheer for. It is a good thing however that soldiers are not blamed personally for following orders.
And as a small side track (I believed this has been discussed here some time ago); it shows the importance of the army dealing with misbehaviour (we see so much more because of youtube etc) of individual soldiers in a correct way. Whereas armies often defend their soldiers too much (so even for things like Abu Ghraib and other crimes against the locals) it actually hurts the major part (who are just doing a good job) when coming home. I think this also played a role in the vietnam war where several horrible incidents where soldiers had been killing civilians take over and reflect on all of the soldiers coming home (of whom 99% just did a good job). So in (my) conclusion; the army should deal very strict with war crimes in order to keep a good image, which then makes it easier for the soldiers when they are back home again.

As a citizen one of the best things you can do is so appreciation for the individual soldier. You can protest the leadership all you want though.

I agree 100% with this.

[kandrathe]

I think this also played a role in the Vietnam war where several horrible incidents where soldiers had been killing civilians take over and reflect on all of the soldiers coming home (of whom 99% just did a good job). So in (my) conclusion; the army should deal very strict with war crimes in order to keep a good image, which then makes it easier for the soldiers when they are back home again.

Horrible incidents happened during and after WWII as well, but the media was not as vociferous and the camera's were not there to record the nightmares. War is force, and giving the power of life and death to young soldiers. Only through discipline and leadership can they be expected to not abuse this power. I've heard stories of the horrors in the pacific campaign that make the most barbaric head hunter tribes seem civilized. There were also acts of great courage, and of compassion.

But, war is hell.

<blockquote>"You cannot qualify war in harsher terms than I will. War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it; and those who brought war into our country deserve all the curses and maledictions a people can pour out. I know I had no hand in making this war, and I know I will make more sacrifices to-day than any of you to secure peace. But you cannot have peace and a division of our country. If the United States submits to a division now, it will not stop, but will go on until we reap the fate of Mexico, which is eternal war. The United States does and must assert its authority, wherever it once had power; for, if it relaxes one bit to pressure, it is gone, and I believe that such is the national feeling." - William Tecumseh Sherman</blockquote>