We hear a lot about Post Traumatic Stress Disorder from the point of view of the soldiers but I feel we're not seeing the full picture nor hearing the full story. What about soldiers, and civilians, and even the opposition? Is there any research or information for the following:
- Do men or women suffer more from PTSD?
- Which ages suffer from PTSD?
- Which groups are more likely to have PTSD: the soldiers (us), the civilians (them), or the opposition (them)?
- Do people in 3rd world countries suffer from PTSD less than those in 1st world countries or the other way around?
- Do civilians suffer from PTSD more when they are invaded by soldiers of a different racial/ethnic/religious group than their own, or when invaded by soldiers from the same racial/ethnic/religious group as their own?
We're not hearing the full story because the data collection for such research is inherently costly and problematic. As evidenced by the OP, we don't even have a full picture of PTSD among our own troops, nor even the VA resources to take care of the diagnosed veterans. On the opposing side, we don't even have an accurate accounting for those actually killed, nevermind the mental state of those who have survived.
There's a good book comprising all of the gov't data on how veterans faired after WWII. They did collect a lot of data and I found their insights surprising and relevant to me. I apologize I cannot remember the books title. I happened across it in a library I can't visit anymore.
Your feeling is probably correct. The NY Times ran an interesting piece in June covering research indicating that some cases of PTSD might actually be the manifestation of traumatic physical brain injury: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/12/magazine/what-if-ptsd-is-m...
Obviously this is an area that warrants careful study, and not jumping to conclusions. I don't doubt that many, perhaps most, cases of returned soldier dysfunction (sorry for the clumsy phrase) are the psychological after-effects of being exposed to the horrors of war. But this new research means we also shouldn't immediately rule out physical damage to the brain as a possible cause. Incidentally this research brings us full-circle, back to some of the theories during WWI about 'shell-shocked' soldiers.
My wife and I have done what we can to be there for the Army National Guard member who introduced us - then went to Afghanistan and lost people under his command in an IED attack & firefight. The man who came home is different, but faring better than most.
The after effects of the monumentally fucked-up childish decisions, over the last 15 or so years, to engage in wars and contested occupations (although thankfully that's something we seem to have grown out of) are going to run and run.
I sometimes look at the current batch of world leaders (and aspiring upcomers) and wonder which of them need pushing under a bus now to stop this happening again. It's so hard to tell. Perhaps some big-data startup could get into it and actually make the world a better place.
I read it as rhetorical, not literal. As in, where are the threats? Who is going to make the weak decisions and can we avoid giving them the opportunity to do so?
Are you being ironic, or are you actually calling for deposing of world leaders by force in the name of peace?
Here's your irony; deposing of world leaders by force in the name of peace is exactly the practice of the US, the UK and other such nations that causes so much trouble. Although it does seem to be less fashionable than it was; I suppose even our system can't spin away the colossal failures. I remember when Iraq was going to be a western liberal democracy in a year.
Not so easy in practice. Representative democracy fundamentally limits the scope of available options. It's especially bad in the US; where the potential for damage is maximal.
What would be traumatizing is blowing out a six year old's brains in your first firefight, which the article mentions was the case for Sam Siatta's squadron. I hardly think going to a poor country in itself is the main source of trauma for veterans. It's the violence that happens there and the later realization of the utter futility of the whole thing, the realization that you were used as a pawn for the benefit of weapons manufacturers and imperialistic geopolitical maneuvering.
What? People are very likely to develop stress disorders from continuous and constant proximity to violence regardless of where it takes place.
People who grow up in a state of constant war become desensitized to it but you're going to have a problem with their behavior and tendencies once you have them try to adapt to what amounts to a normal life to you.
We just don't have many institutions left in the us to care for people after trauma, and the few we have are as impersonal as possible. It's hard to come back to ones family after seeing terrible things. Honestly I can't help but feel that the lack of community in modern life tends to exacerbate all these problems. If you don't know your neighbors there can be little to latch onto other than places and things. The image from the Hurt Locker of the guy meandering through the grocery store comes to mind. What is all this excess for, when there's such suffering happening in the world?
As I understand it, likelihood of trauma (PTSD) rises sharply with time spent in actual combat. During WWII, even places like Battle of the Bulge, infantry were on the front lines a few weeks. That amount has gone up steadily with Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and so forth.
As an Iraq War veteran myself I'm pretty sick of these stories being what get headlines and pages of coverage about military members. People read these pieces and think it defines an entire generation of War Veterans. It doesn't. No hit on the authors, they all seem to be genuinely wanting to help/tell a compelling story - but I think it comes with some kind of fetish for war that they are trying to get in touch with. How about instead we talk about War Vets who are successful (or on their way)?
Here are a few of my personal friends:
Abraham Kamarck and Kevin Powell Army and Navy Vets. Founders True Made Foods:
...and there are thousands starting and running their own businesses, charities, churches, schools, working at googamafacesoft etc...none of them looking for special treatment or special recognition. It's a part of our story that most of us are proud of, but it's not everything.
We take care of our own as best we can, and people fall through the cracks. The issues with the care system for vets isn't perfect, but it also takes effort on the part of those who need help, and those who aren't willing to help themselves and take advantage of those programs are the ones you hear about.
So lets stop treating our vets like they need special treatment - good or bad.
"I'm pretty sick of these stories being what get headlines and pages of coverage about military members. ... No hit on the authors, they all seem to be genuinely wanting to help/tell a compelling story - but I think it comes with some kind of fetish for war that they are trying to get in touch with."
There is truth to what you say. The biggest issue I see, isn't the story so much trauma, trauma and war are hand maidens in history, it's how main-stream western society is shielded from the military. There is no common experience. Period. That's the bigger story.
The author is C. J. Chivers, USMC (Capt. Retd.), so yeah, ^the fetish for war^ is strong. So strong, he had to quit for the sake of those around him. [0]
main-stream western society is shielded from the military. There is no common experience. Period. That's the bigger story.
We talk about this a lot and it's an odd topic.
On the one hand it's great that western countries have the luxury of having so few impacts from wars that many don't even know that the US still has 8,400 military personnel in Afghanistan.
On the other hand it makes the population really not give a shit about issues surrounding formal war or it's personal impacts, so they end up just letting politicians slide on stuff.
> it makes the population really not give a shit about issues surrounding formal war
Soldiers are between truck drivers and lawyers. More tactile than, and similarly skilled as, most of them. The luxury of the first world is the population's ability to ignore dying soldiers.
Chivers surprised me. I set out to stereotype him as some gun fetishist and walked away from his book about the AK-47 with a full sense that small-arms proliferation is one of the worst things to happen in human history.
That seems like a strange conclusion to reach. Humanity is per-capita less violent than ever, despite probably the highest per-capita small arms density in history. My suspicion is that the techniques available for individuals to kill each other has little impact on their proclivity to kill each other. Of course, that says nothing about the impact of increasingly effective large-scale weapons (nuclear/biological/chemical) on the proclivity of organizations like governments to kill people.
"Humanity is per-capita ^less violent^ than ever,"
Relative, like standing at the side of the road instead of in it. One reason I never talk about stuff like this is ppl who intellectualise rather than show any understanding of emotional response.
The major ongoing conflicts within The Middle East, Africa, and South America are as brutal as they are because of small arms and associated trade... specifically the communism-driven over-abundance of AK-47s
Why do you think they are any more brutal with AK-47s than they would be without small arms? We don't have a control group, but let's try to construct some comparisons.
All of the regions you mention have a long and storied history of brutal conquest and warfare that predate the invention of small arms. This is evidence against small arms being a causal factor.
The vast majority of the regime-caused deaths of the last hundred years are from starvation, not from combat. Again, evidence that small arms are not a prerequisite for mass suffering.
The country with the highest small arms concentration in the world by a factor of 50% is the US, which is also one of the richest countries in the world by any metric. This is evidence against small arms proliferation being a sufficient condition for conflict.
So while it's possible that small arms made the pre-existing conflicts in these regions worse, I don't see any strong evidence for it. If you take the Geneva perspective on things, it's a lot more humane to get shot than to e.g. die from an infected spear wound, so one can imagine how this modernization of warfare might even make it marginally less terrible. If you have any data that suggests that small arms definitively make these conflicts worse, I would like to hear it.
I'm talking about an entire book that provides a strong argument. Want me to read it to you? Maybe I should paste the entire contents here, would that be easier for you?
> We take care of our own as best we can, and people fall through the cracks
This statement disgusts me. I struggled immensely transitioning from combat to civilian life. Nobody helped until years later I got lucky and someone referred me to a preacher who was also a therapist. The VA threw pills at myself and my brothers. Some of them are dead now. Some took their own lives on purpose, others on accident living dangerously. Some have spent time in prison for turning violent. I count myself incredibly lucky that I didn't kill anyone and wind up in prison.
I'm so upset by your comment. It's so wrong. Killing people, getting killed, being constantly in threat of mortal danger, these things break our brains. We do not take care of our own the best we can. We do a shit job of it IMO.
"I'm so upset by your comment. It's so wrong. Killing people, getting killed, being constantly in threat of mortal danger, these things break our brains."
One thing I keep in mind, thinking about this stuff is proximity to violence. The closer, the greater the damage. A cushioning factor, the people around you. When the group of people who serve are a small percentage of the population this becomes a big problem.
There are no modern rituals for warriors to re-integrate back into society. That's also problem that could be addressed. In 2015 and 2016 a new ritual, ^Vets Town Hall^ [0][1] started. Given a chance talking at a place like this at least, gives Veterans like yourself a voice. It also gives civilians, like myself a chance to hear you.
I believe your (excellent) point also applies to the broader issue of mental health.
Based on being around and close to many people with mental health problems (and, to some degree, based on my personal experience), a major problem is transitioning back into society after prolonged periods of 'problems' and/or therapy. Quite a number of them struggled for years to get back into some kind of 'normal' life, if they managed to do so at all.
In a few cases I've even wondered if they'd been better off not being treated and labeled and instead figuring out over time how to cope or deal with their problems in better ways.
It's like breaking a leg and - after it being fixed and healed - being sent home without any physical therapy or instructions on how to regain muscle strength, and everyone expects you to just get up and walk like they do.
Now, and I can't emphasize this enough, I'm not saying that therapy is a bad idea. In many cases it's absolutely necessary and in most cases it's the best we can do what with our limited understanding of the mind and the society/reality we live in.
But still, I wonder if the success rate of treatment for things like depression, addiction, and many other problems would be significantly higher if we put more effort into the rehabilitation process, both as 'caregivers' and as a society.
It's difficult to raise this issue without getting into the problem of the hyper-individualistic nature of (western) society though, which I think lies at the root of this issue (and perhaps at the root of many mental health issues). Perhaps we've prized and institutionalized freedom of choice and self-sufficiency so much that we forgot how to deal with those who, for various reasons, are unable to.
With no lack of empathy for the veterans (of all countries) and the horrible things they go through...
Don't you guys ask yourself how come you are always at war? Why you have "generations of veterans", even though you have by far the most powerful military force to ever have existed?
There is no credible conventional threat to the US, and there is no unconventional one that can be mitigated by fighting a war.
Not participating in unnecessary wars would help the mental health of soldiers much more than therapy or whatever else.
> Don't you guys ask yourself how come you are always at war?
Actually, I'm a veteran, son of a veteran, son of a son of a veteran, and we all served in between wars, so we're not exactly "always at war".
But all bullshit aside, why would you lay that kind of blame on the people who rolled the dice (choosing between enlisting and working at DQ to pay off their double-wide) and now have to go out and do the job, versus the people who are making a profit every time we shoot off a $200K TOW round? There are, like, half a dozen people in the Army who could raise their hand and say "let's have a war" and have it actually mean anything, but you're asking veterans why they fight wars.
Second: Your idealism is compelling, yet you overstate the facilities available to the common citizen.
Third: Pointing the finger at 'Americans' and saying 'Why don't you quit fighting so much?' only serves to feed the narrative that Americans are war-hungry.
Case in point: there is not a single military battle being fought on American soil. We, the 'war hungry' Americans, only commit to actionable defense of foreign states whose sovereignty is threatened by whatever forces are objectively creating a threat. We do so because we stand on the principle that it is better to stand up for the weak than it is to kowtow to dictators or totalitarian states. Now, we do this in a manner that is selective because geopolitics isn't a black and white decision matrix, and we have to pick battles that that we not only think we can win, but that won't serve to exacerbate the problems of totalitarianism and despotic rule.
Since the War Powers Act, it's basically been the president who makes war. Congressional declarations are a formality. Many of the events that we think of as wars are "military actions"-- Korean "War", Vietnam "War", First Iraq "war", second Iraq "war", Afghanistan "war", Kosovo, Libya, etc
> Don't you guys ask yourself how come you are always at war? Why you have "generations of veterans", even though you have by far the most powerful military force to ever have existed?
We have the most powerful military ever because we've decided to take in the role of global hegemon. Now maybe that's a bad idea--but it's much bigger than just getting into specific wars that may or may not be particularly necessary. We live in a world order built on the American military maintaining the status quo.
"I hope the OP responds to your comment. I have a feeling he won't, though"
Trying to pit man against man, service against service? There's a concept that isn't understood enough. Respect, "Respect behind the wire". You'll find this in military circles because? [0]
Tell me, friend, how does a group of people enforce their rights within a country against those who wish to deny those rights?
ISIS wants a global Islamic caliphate, along with a Caliph at its head and Sharia law. They want this in the US, Europe, and every other country on the planet. They do not negotiate, because they believe they carry out the will of an omnipotent deity. And most importantly, they will brutally slaughter anyone who stands in their way.
So, how do we defend our rights to a different way of life, against those who would kill us for it?
Oh, and a cursory glance at history would be educational. Pacifism is a great idea, until it isn't.
Observed as an apparition conjured in a vacuum, ISIS really looks like such a beast, that no one could have created it or prevented it, right?
It seems like such an alien organization, that it must have always existed, but we know that's not true.
But let's suspend disbelief, cast aside rational thought, grab a gun and do something, because something like this requires direct action before it's too late!
Not really. It's just smoke an mirrors.
The country was deliberately destroyed for no reason. Iraq has been transformed into the mutilated free fire zone it is, because there was a good excuse for it, at the time, and there might never have been a better chance like that, to get away with destroying Iraq like there was at that moment.
So now panic about ISIS, right?
Panic about the bad guys.
Let people initiate opportunistic wars in 2003, so we can panic about the results in 2016?
What exactly is "Disgusting" about it? Notice the as best we can... I'm speaking specifically about your teammates and CoC. I'm not talking about the VA, VSOs and the rest - we know their failures but I have to acknowledge that they are massively beneficial if you take advantage of them.
No one disputes that there are major challenges to coming back to society from war, especially with TBI or otherwise. So nobody is making light of that.
The point here however is that the TBI/PTSD serviceman shouldn't be what comes to mind when people think "War Veteran." The majority of war veterans are not broken by it. We need to take care of those who were, but they shouldn't define the rest of us and it doesn't do those with disabilities a service for that to be the narrative.
Happy to talk offline if you're still looking for help, send me a note.
I think people should think of war as something that breaks people, something that has an immense cost. Frankly more combat vets come back with issues than don't.
...and those who aren't willing to help themselves...
It's simple. Help people help themselves, help those who can't.
People with diseases often can't help themselves. Whether its caused by drugs, war, poverty, assault, cancer, whatever. Because they're sick. And people do all sorts of stupid things when they're sick.
So lets stop treating our vets like they need special treatment - good or bad.
Tough love and neglect is a suboptimal strategy for treating PTSD.
My bestie served, he was harmed; he was fine until he wasn't. He deserves whatever consideration we can offer.
I'm glad you and most others weren't harmed that way. Have some empathy for those not so fortunate.
The armed forces, of many countries, really have to address their drinking culture. Whatever challenge life throws at you after your service, alcohol doesn't help. I read story after story about former soldiers coming home with problems. They are always exacerbated by alcohol. It's right there in the first sentence of the OP.
I've got family in three different armed forces, and a couple clients. Too many of their anecdotes begin with drinking. Some of it is certainly them self-medicating, but much of it is also boredom. Lots of soldiers just aren't happy with their daily routines. I remember chatting with a kid in the US navy on his way to Japan (connecting flight through seattle). What he was most excited about was the lower drinking age. He had his first weekend all planned out ... complete with pics of bars emailed by buddies. I wasn't going to lecture the kid. A new job in a new country and that's all you are happy about? (I wont say what the kid was tasked with as he likely divulged more than he should.)
Incredible amount of respect for the author for such a huge high quality article!
Cannot imagine the amount of hard work that must have been put into writing it.
- Do men or women suffer more from PTSD?
- Which ages suffer from PTSD?
- Which groups are more likely to have PTSD: the soldiers (us), the civilians (them), or the opposition (them)?
- Do people in 3rd world countries suffer from PTSD less than those in 1st world countries or the other way around?
- Do civilians suffer from PTSD more when they are invaded by soldiers of a different racial/ethnic/religious group than their own, or when invaded by soldiers from the same racial/ethnic/religious group as their own?
reply