I found this innuendo to be quite disturbing:
The study found that soldiers who had high levels of anger, experienced high levels of combat or screened positive for a mental health symptom were nearly twice as likely to mistreat non-combatants as those who reported low levels of anger, said Maj. Gen. Gale Pollock, the acting Army surgeon general.
in my mind, why should the media blame the emotional state of our troops for the chaos in Iraq? because, after all, aren't our troops, first and foremost, trained to dispose of the enemy efficiently and without regret?
to absolve "higher ups" from war crimes by blaming the mental state of their subordinates seems totally disingenuous.
what's even more surprising is that, asides from linking mental illness and stress to inhumane acts, instead of a war plan, the article also refuses to defend or discuss the right of every soldier to decline the order to redeploy!
because, after all, if mental illess and stress cause our soldiers to act inhumanely, then shouldn't our military's redeployment policy, which redeploys soldiers as quickly as possible, before they have any regrets, be addressed as well?
in my mind, if the "higher ups" in the military know that they can reduce the scope of inhumane acts simply by allowing soldiers to refuse redeployment, then shouldn't top brass change current policy or take the moral responsibility for what happens?
Story In LaTimes