Media Blames "The Troops" For "Over The Top Violence"
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?
in my mind, why should the media blame the emotional state of our troops for the chaos in Iraq?
Yours seems to me to be a confused response. The general’s statement would seem to be, and almost certainly is, correct. To quote it is not a case of the media blaming the troops, rather it is a case of the media reporting what a general said which is something that the public should know and understand.
I expect that the mental state of every soldier who has been in combat is changed and the more combat, the more change, except for the few who started out in the first place as psychopaths or sociopaths. The experiences of soldiers in this type of war create fear, anger, and confusion. These sometimes lead to rage. A young, fearful, angry, adrenalin soaked soldier is much more likely to act wrongfully towards anyone who is the enemy or who looks just like the enemy and so might be the enemy. The situation creates tragically wrong actions. It starts a tragic feedback loop.
Ultimately, the soldier is probably not to blame, but the fact that it happens is just that, a fact.
May 5, 2007 10:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yours seems to me to be a confused response.
I fully blame the military brass for asking the troops to do immoral things. in my mind, it's the people at the top asking the soldiers to do these bad things that creates the problem.
tenet, in his interview, wouldn't deny giving orders to torture, etc... if I was told to do these things, I'd have a mental break down and be stressed out too, especially if I had to go back again because I'd feel powerless and hopeless.
I suppose that I felt that the LaTimes should lay blame where it lies!
there's a reason why people say: "support the troops, bring them home!"
May 5, 2007 1:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
RJ, you hit the nail on the head when you mentioned these repeat deployments. I told my son that the bitch of it, as far as trying to recover from PTSD from the first deployment, is that you spend 12-14 hours a day when you get back, training for more war, and then before a year is up, you are sent back into combat. You really have no time to recuperate or restore your equilibrium. And you know, you KNOW, that whole time you are "home" (i.e. not really home) that you are going back to hell.
It does a terrible head trip on the guys, as far as frustration and anxiety and anger.
After his first deployment, he said he was trying very hard not to be prejudiced against everyone with an Arabic surname because he knew that what he'd seen in Iraq wasn't their fault. He had some anger, but over time, it faded.
But the second deployment was so much worse--and that's something else, too. The situation has deteriorated every time they go back, and areas men and women died to clear one deployment are, when they get back, infested again. And more civilians have turned against them. It's just HARDER. More die. Their anger toward the populace really grows because they can't trust anyone--just like in Vietnam. The kids are as likely to be spotting for insurgents as anyone. They'll take candy from the troops, then run in and tell their uncles or brothers that the Americans are coming, so they can grab up their cellphones and detonate the IED that will kill half of them.
So yeah, they get rougher with detainees and with suspicious civilians because they are exhausted and scared and angry and THEY DON'T WANT TO BE THERE IN THE FIRST DAMN PLACE and then, they get told their deployments have been extended, or they get told that they'll be coming back.
It's a friggin' nightmare. And if the troops are exploding quicker, you have absolutely no one to blame but the civilian leadership for forcing them back into the situation over and over and over again with no damn end in sight.
May 5, 2007 11:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Damn straight, Deanie. My son went through the same thing. He went there in the first place thinking he was helping these people. Now he doesn't care if the whole country is nuked. The way he has come to see it, the people of Iraq do not care that we're dying for them. In his heart he knows that's not true of all the Iraqis, but he doesn't have the luxury of picking their brains about their politics when he knows he's one misstep away from having his own brains blown apart by any one of them.
Debra Morgan Pardee
"The people who get on in this world are the people who get up and look for the circumstances they want, and, if they can't find them, make them." -- George Bernard Shaw
May 5, 2007 11:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
. . . the people of Iraq do not care that we're dying for them.
Jeez; maybe because the Iraqis have scoped out the fact that "we're [not] dying for them."
"We're dying" to advance America's goal -- the maintenance of US hegemony in the Persian Gulf. Perhaps, them hajis just don't cotton to getting killed so Americans can enjoy cheap oil. Yep; damn ungrateful of them, I'd say.
May 5, 2007 12:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
As usual, you missed the point...
Debra Morgan Pardee
May 5, 2007 12:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
maybe you could clear up what she missed? Many of the soldiers that I've talked to say that we're over there for oil because they were protecting oil tankers and oil facilities.
part of the reason why they had a more difficult time with a "second deployment" was because they no longer believed in the white house's trumped up charges, etc...
I think the LaTimes should really ask the deeper questions of, "what happens when a soldier no longer believes their sides propaganda and/or hype?"
your son's reaction is understandable: "if we nuke this country, [then I can go home]!"
both your son and iraqi civilians are stuck in between a resource war that they don't need or want!
May 6, 2007 2:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mitch, this war a MEDICAL report prepared by doctors for the TOP BRASS so that they can make policy changes. Go read the actual document:
Report
Debra Morgan Pardee
"The people who get on in this world are the people who get up and look for the circumstances they want, and, if they can't find them, make them." -- George Bernard Shaw
May 5, 2007 11:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
I believe you! So, should every soldier have the right to refuse deployment if he/she feels that he/she is at risk of treating non-compatants improperly because of war related stresses?
May 5, 2007 1:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Refuse on the basis of "feelings"? No, But should soldiers make someone aware that they're having these feelings? Yes. And should the Top Brass be responding by changing policies? Definitely. This report was prompted because of what happened at Abu Grab and the high suicide rate amongst deployed troops.
As for treating "non-combatants" improperly: How does a soldier know who is or isn't a non-combatant? Our troops and the Iraq Army are the only ones wearing uniforms or insignias ....
When you've seen your friends blown up by someone who looks like a non-combatant, you tend to start thinking that the only ones you can trust are those wearing the same uniform as yourself.
This kind of stereotyping, while not acceptable, is certainly understandable, given the incredible stress they are under. And while it's easy to pin the Top Brass for all the blame, there's really only one person who is responsible for all the soldiers on the ground: The Commander in Chief -- a non-combatant civilian who wields more control than all the Brass in the Pentagon pooled together.
The question we all should be asking is this: Given the number of reports and intelligence and experts that were available to the Chief Decider, how is it that this war has been so badly mismanaged?
I think the answer to that lies in George Tenent's recent media interviews.
When challenged as to why he didn't share with Bush his "opinions" about the authenticity of the intelligence on WMDs the CIA had gathered and Bush USED in his decision to get into this mess, George T. said, "That's not my job."
Ironically, George W. has been saying, "I made my decision based on the intelligence I had at the time."
In computer programming lingo this kind of circular logic is referred to as a "loop." And in the locker room this is known as a "circle jerk." Apparently these two Georges can't make a sound decision between the two of them.
Whatever you want to call it, it reveals two very obvious points: Presidential appointees in the Bush Administration are no longer "advisers" (as in someone who gives advice, ie. an opinion or recommendation offered as a guide to action, conduct, etc.)-- they're conveyers, with about as much intelligence as my computer; and Bush lacks the intellectual capacity (or emotional security) to ask critical questions that will assist him in forming sound decisions.
Obviously, when you read this report, you started asking some critical questions. I dare say, Bush didn't. And that's why we're in the mess we're in today.
Debra Morgan Pardee
"The people who get on in this world are the people who get up and look for the circumstances they want, and, if they can't find them, make them." -- George Bernard Shaw
May 5, 2007 2:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
But should soldiers make someone aware that they're having these feelings? Yes.
who protects that soldier from being killed by their own? based on what i read, its really hard to back out.
a soldier from alaska shot himself so he didn't have to return.
May 5, 2007 2:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
MCS, you've brought up something the Army is currently looking at. Under OFFICIAL Army policy a soldier is encouraged to seek help. However, what actually happens is more primal -- especially in war zones. If a soldier seeks counseling or assistance for emotional problems in combat, like wolves, they see that person as "weak" and a threat to the whole "pack."
Given this climate and the fact that soldiers can't just quit, they have no one to turn to in times of emotional crisis and see only two courses of action -- shut down emotionally or lose control of your emotions. And if you lose control, you'll be seen as a threat to your buddies and to your company. Tragically, a few choose to end their own lives rather than risk bringing dishonor to themselves and to the people they love and respect.
The Army has never before had this large a number of troops rotating in and out of combat -- not even in Vietnam. Even then, and correct me if I'm wrong, soldiers were only obligated to do ONE 12-month tour in Nam and could re-enlist, but only for 6-month extensions with a maximum of 12-months of total combat experience. Few enlisted for two or three tours. Today's soldiers are being required to do multiple 12-month tours and they're beginning to see what happens to their "lean, mean, fighting machine" when it isn't allowed to "cool down."
Soldiers are trained to "act" not "think" and they're trained to be "desensitized" not be "responsive."
It's up to their leadership -- all the way to the top -- to take into consideration all the consequences of going to war, including the emotional welfare of the troops.
This president, who didn't even have the courage to go to Vietnam (or to even complete his military obligation), has failed his duty to the troops.
Hopefully, more people like you will ask the tough questions that didn't get asked by this administration.
Debra Morgan Pardee
"The people who get on in this world are the people who get up and look for the circumstances they want, and, if they can't find them, make them." -- George Bernard Shaw
May 5, 2007 3:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Morgan Pardee is correct to point out that this is a medical report to advise command authority on policy matters. But you are also correct in your critique of the “newpaper article.” While the medical report does not contain a sufficient amount of background for the non-technical reader, it at least has that dry, clinical ambience appropriate to a technical document addressed to a professional audience. The LA Times article is none of that. It is just a jumble of snippets that don’t start and don’t end. The reader is free, and by free I mean “to abandon discipline”, to take whatever they might from it. Your take, that it blames the soldiers, is completely defensible.
This is pseudo-journalism. The necessary context it completely missing. My personal favorite is this paragraph ( yes a stand alone paragraph ):
“Fewer than half of the service members questioned agreed with the statement "All noncombatants should be treated with dignity and respect."
Without ten pages of set-up and forty pages of follow-on distinctions and caveats this sentence is mere titillation. I find the whole article pornographic.
May 5, 2007 2:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good point, Larry. Which is why it's really the responsibility of EACH AND EVERYONE OF US do our "homework."
As a former newspaper writer and copy editor (no, didn't go to J school, but I spent nearly two decades in newsrooms), I often saw how frustrated reporters were trying to get the WHOLE story to fit inside a 15-inch news hole. And as a copy editor, it was difficult to pare down a vital story to fit ever shrinking editorial space -- many judgement calls are made just minutes before deadline.
Pornographic? How about just plain "graphic" in the hopes that it will arouse enough reader curiosity to go find the WHOLE story for themselves.
Debra Morgan Pardee
"The people who get on in this world are the people who get up and look for the circumstances they want, and, if they can't find them, make them." -- George Bernard Shaw
May 5, 2007 3:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll happily agree to your replacement for my adjective "pornographic" for the purpose you intend. I would not retract that characterization but I agree that it is a distraction.
I also think that your focus is the more compelling one. It is interesting to speculate on the clinical nature of the "combat" experience. But the overarching consideration is that we are asking for the ultimate sacrifice and for that request we had all better have a profound need. Otherwise our humanity is in doubt far more than any soldier's.
May 5, 2007 5:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, said, Larry. It's an unfortunate fact that it's the politician, whose ass is safe and snug here at home, who must decide what the soldier's mission is; and it's the duty of we, who bothered to take some time out of our lives to elect them as our "representatives" in this grand social experiment called democracy, to ensure that lives will be sacrificed only for a noble cause.
And it's the job of those who buy ink by the barrel (or blog by the hour), to ignite some serious thought and discussion that will lead others to want to participate this process.
The media has succumbed to corporate greed, leaving only spaces like this to stir up political passion.
Debra Morgan Pardee
"The people who get on in this world are the people who get up and look for the circumstances they want, and, if they can't find them, make them." -- George Bernard Shaw
May 5, 2007 5:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
How right you are. And so I understand your signature quotation from Shaw. In San Francisco in the late 60's there was an FM station KSAN that broadcast the youthful perspective. The newsreader, one Scoop Nitzger, would describe the days upheavals and then always end with "And that's the news. If you don't like it go out and make some of your own."
May 5, 2007 6:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hope I'm not drifting too far off topic to discuss the full report. Perhaps I should do a separate blog post, or even something for the healthcare discussion table.
After my first reading, I'm somewhat disappointed in the report. Essentially, it states some statistical conclusions about mental health and ethics, and lists certain recommendations.
I'm most bothered on its lack of attempts to find causality. Essentially all tables that break down problems by region or military specialty are censored. It reads more like opinion polling of the troops than a report in a broader context of military medicine. It doesn't look at the stressors that have been documented from WWII on, such as length of time in combat. I'll freely admit that environments where people are in intense danger, and then back to base, have been less understood than constant combat situations.
There are no comparisons with British experience in Northern Ireland or with any UN/NATO peace operations, operations which may be distinctly different psychologically than the classic combat operation analyses.
Perhaps these are nits, but there are some medical inaccuracies. PTSD and acute stress reactions are quite different entitities -- the DSM-IV definition of PTSD includes that the symptoms start occurring at least three months after the event -- but the terms are mingled.
I found several places where I needed more to understand the point, such as in a discussion that some antidepressants not being available. Generally, antidepressant therapy takes 1-4 weeks to become effective, and in the early stages of clinical response, there may be increased suicide risks. While you could give antianxiety and sleep drugs and send someone back into combat, this really is questionable for appropriately prescribed antidepressants.
While I don't get the sense of "cover-up", I get a sense that there is a lot of missing context.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
May 6, 2007 3:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
While I don't get the sense of "cover-up", I get a sense that there is a lot of missing context.
you may remember my posts about Dr. Doug Rokke (his website) and his talks about depleted uranium. he was greatly affected by it because he was required to fly out and medically help soliders in the field. other medics refused to fly out into the field because they knew DU was around and they wanted nothing to do with it. when Dr. Rokke got back to the states, he wanted to investigate and during his trip to washington DC, his life was threatened and he was told to back off.
Anyway, this guy describes himself "to the right of bush" and he also told the audience that the miltary refuses to recognize the dangers of DU because, if it did, it would be illegal to let troops use it since it jeopordizes the troops health and DU is also UN illegal since its effects are still felt way after the war is over, just like unexploded landminds do.... but DU is a radioactive heavy metal that causes all kinds of problems.
anyway, if the military recognized that the mental health of soldiers deteriorated and became an additonal risk factor, then they'd have to let soldiers opt out of fighting when they believed that their mental health would complicate making correct moral judgements.
I expect that unless people rise up and complain, there will be no "cover-up" because the military won't be forced to publically "connect the dots" and change policy.
To boldly go where no man has gone before...
May 6, 2007 11:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
"While you could give antianxiety and sleep drugs and send someone back into combat, this really is questionable for appropriately prescribed antidepressants."
Who says they're appropriately prescribed? I think it's closer to "load 'em up and ship 'em out."
I know of a young man from my son's battalion who came home from the first deployment and developed a full blown case of PTSD. Despite acting out and being, in my son's words, "really messed up" this kid was given antidepressants and sent back for the second deployment a year later for the assult on Fallujah. This same kid was sent back a third time (still on meds) nine months later, right about the time the story broke about Marines being sent into combat on antidepressants.
WTF???
Combat stress, lack of sleep, bodies and minds pushed to the edge and back again, an enemy you can't define, a mission that changes like the wind--throw in lethal training, ready access to firearms, buddies on meds and buddies who should be--is it any wonder it's a cluster f***?
May 7, 2007 12:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
The report spoke not of loading someone up and sending them out, but of shortages of these drugs in a combat zone. Unfortunately, the report doesn't address the drugs that are available and the treatment protocols used.
Remember that PTSD is defined to be something where the symptoms start about three months or longer after the stress ends. There is a different acute stress syndrome that gets different treatment.
Civilian organizations with high-risk jobs (e.g., fire and EMS) use a variety of techniques to deal with acute stress. The psychiatric literature I've read makes clear every case has to be handled differently. Some people benefit from what was once considered a panacea: mandatory group discussion in Critical Incident Stress Debriefing (CISD). CISD was found useful for some and bad for others, and it now is offered on an optional basis. Some first responders need quiet time, sometimes with some medical leave, to get their thoughts together before discussing them.
As a general rule, both in civilian stress and combat, the psychiatric experience -- and where someone with psychotherapeutic training is needed -- it's often best, with milder cases, to provide some respite care, possibly medication, and various forms of supportive talk/listening, to take someone to a facility not far from the stress. If it's deemed medically advisable -- and I'm thinking of examples from civilian firefighting, or other areas where there is significant unit cohesion -- sometimes you induce more stress by not letting someone back to their unit.
While the techniques have changed greatly since my mother was an Army social work officer that did psychotherapy (among other things), this is hardly a new issue for the military. In WWI and especially with the British in WWII, it was considered "lack of moral fiber", but increasingly, it's understood as a constellation of stress disorders.
I suspect that the mission changes and invisible enemy are more the stressors than properly managed stress -- and proper stress management can involve appropriate medication. There also could be very inappropriate medication, such as giving sympathetic amine stimulants such as amphetamine, coupled with strong sedatives to come down.
I still want to see a withdrawal, but, in that time, let's not panic and assume all medical measures are meant to throw people into the grinder. Depression, for example, can be a lifelong chronic disease not necessarily due to stress. I would not consider it disqualifying for combat to be on certain types of antidepressants, although I'd worry about other types (I can detail for those interested in medical specifics)
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
May 7, 2007 9:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
thanks for your posting. it made me think a little deeper about the vietnam vets who came back as drug addicts and why its so important to "support the troops" when they come back because a lot of s**t happens to them that I can't even imagine... and they have a lot of healing to do.
May 7, 2007 11:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
I can't agree more about the healing when they come back, and the need both for personal and medical support. Literally, some psychiatric disorders, some with suicide risk, won't appear in the combat zone. When in the stress, people put up defensive mechanisms that may hide what is going on inside.
Once back, however, they can have all kinds of problems adapting. In no way am I stigmatizing them with a label like "crazy Vietnam vets", as at least some military organizations are very conscious of helping people readapt and watching for any symptoms of disturbance. I'm aware of Fort Bragg being proactive here, but don't know if this is Army-wide policy.
Although it may be impossible with current demands on personnel, I'd like to see exploration of bringing back units with a timing such that people get discharged no sooner than 3-4 months after return. Part of that is to allow structure and support for readaptation.
Another part of that would be military, although it has to be considered carefully, on an individual by individual basis, if it's safe for the returnees. One of the reasons that the US won in the Pacific theater of WWII is that we had a very different personnel management policy for pilots and aircrew than did the Japanese.
The Japanese started the war with a relatively small group of utterly superb naval aviators. Perhaps due to the formal warrior tradition, however, they rarely rotated them back to Japan or even gave them much rest, and had them fly until they were killed in action.
In contrast, the US brought back new pilots after a moderate amount of combat, for both rest and to work as instructors or staff. Pilot trainees about to go into battle tended to listen carefully to the instructions of someone who had survived it. Where the quality of Japanese pilots kept going down because the veterans' knowledge was not being passed on, the US skills went up. More senior aviation officers came back and worked on such things as improving equipment and tactics, where the Japanese again weren't getting real-world information.
Again being extremely careful not to retrigger stresses, returning troops could make very good instructors, even if in an informal way. Even more carefully selected returnees could role-play the enemy in the Opposing Force units at training centers.
While I definitely would want psychiatric and psychological evaluation of such proposals, it's possible that being seen as one that has knowledge to pass on might be helpful for readjustment and self-respect. In primitive societies, the older warrior were respected, and this may be a human tendency outside corporate culture.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
May 7, 2007 11:39 AM | Reply | Permalink