SecretMethod70

I think one of the saddest things things about the ongoing war in Iraq is the effect it is having on the mental health of our troops. A war is difficult enough on mental health, but a failing war in which troops are deployed, redeployed, and deployed for longer, all while fighting insurgent forces who are not only willing to kill you in brutal ways, but torture you before doing so is unsurprisingly even worse. And it's showing.

<a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18496711/">Besides for the obvious issue of the mental health of our soldiers, this is equally important in terms of winning the war. A necessary part of achieving success in Iraq is gaining and maintaining the support of the Iraqi people. How is that supposed to happen when less than half our soldiers think noncombatants should be treated with dignity and respect, about a third of troops insult or curse at civilians (something which Iraqi citizens are sensitive to and which, according to a report I heard on NPR, the military is explicitly training soldiers not to do), and a significant number of soldiers admit to mistreating citizens and unnecessarily damaging property? Taking care of our troops, both physically and mentally, is not only in their interest, but in the interest of the overall goals of this war. So why is it that the Bush administration is, instead, willing to place these troops under more stress with longer tours of duty? (Sadly, that's a bit of a rhetorical question, because I, like many others, have given up on finding any "reason" in most of this president's actions.)

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

host

....and it's one, two, three....what are we fighting for? What have we allowed ourselves to become....beings no more righteous, or full of grace, than "the other", who we demonize, who we fight, who we have become indistinguishable from......

Bill O'Rights

Host? What does any of that have to do with the lack of "support" that this country is giving to returning war veterans? You wanna wave a protest sign, do so in another thread.

__________________
"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." - Susan B. Anthony

"Hedonism with rules isn't hedonism at all, it's the Republican party." - JumpinJesus

It is indisputable that true beauty lies within...but a nice rack sure doesn't hurt.

tecoyah

We, as a society, are likely in for an influx of metally damaged individuals very soon. As these soldiers return to the homes they left, it will be the duty of us all to do what we can to repair the damage war has inflicted upon them.

My hope is that the next Administration takes this problem seriously....and acts to create the infrastructure we will need to deal with what may be a very large number of Fucked Up minds.


Oh....And Host...seriously, threadjacking is not the way to get anyone to listen to you.

host

There were...until I posted, no responses to the the thread OP.

From the center of the first of two quote boxes from my post:
....if you don't think that the core reasons for the deterioration of the mental health of our troops...manifesting itself in the lack of empathy of the troops for the former victims of "an evil ruthless dictator.....he gassed his own people", is a "top down" progression, then, what is it?

I don't see how my post could be more "spot on"....

Bill O'Rights

So, your base response is something along the lines of...they have it coming? That they deserve the shoddy medical treatment that they're getting? Is that what I'm to infer?
Tell me that I'm wrong here.

__________________
"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." - Susan B. Anthony

"Hedonism with rules isn't hedonism at all, it's the Republican party." - JumpinJesus

It is indisputable that true beauty lies within...but a nice rack sure doesn't hurt.

host

From the OP:
My post was an attempt to explain how our troops were influenced to end up being described as they are, above, and in the OP. I assumed that the list in the OP were the symptoms of mentally ill "thinking".

I think that "mentally ill" troops and the people of Iraq are all victims of the same immoral and illegal agenda. I think that the "fall out" from the illegal invasion of Iraq will be incalculably vast, in the US, in Iraq, and in the M.E. I've posted nothing controversial, and....if you're looking to draw me into a "pissing contest" as to whether or not they [the troops], <b>"have it coming"</b>, you won't get sentiments like that, out of me.

Our troops have been shortchanged by the perpetrators of crimes against humanity in Iraq....their commanders...senior officers and responsible officials in the executive branch, and in the congress, in every way imaginable...and they deserve the best available medical treatment and they and their families deserve strong emotional and material support from the rest of us.

Justice demands that everyone who has committed war crimes, crimes against humanity, related to the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq, as well as other crimes against the US constitution, in the course of the least six years, be held accountable....each according to their culpability.

But....this in no way should detract from a US commitment to provide a high standard of medical care and other support for our deployed, returning, or returned, troops.

Bill O'Rights

I am not trying to draw you into a pissing contest. I just want to make certain that I know what you're trying to accomplish here. And, frankly, I'm still not certain. You hover around this thread, dropping "torture bombs", in what I can only assume is an attept to misdirect the tone of the thread. You "assume" that they are mentaly ill because they are forced to aschew the civilities of life that you and I can take for granted. It's awfully easy to sit in the comfort of your living room, in front of a computer screen, and denounce all that is wrong. I submit that they are coming home in the condition that they are because they've seen their friends blown to kingdom come. They walk each day not knowing if the next breath they take is going to be thier last. They're over there not for one tour. Not for two tours. But for three and four consecutive tours. Do not tell me that that's not going to take a psychological toll.

Then...the wounded are brought back to an underfunded system that cannot cope with them. The military purposely underrates their disabilities in order to save a few bucks. The VA is under staffed and underfunded. It's a crisis. So, if you want to talk about "war crimes", I see this as a crime. Our troops have earned and deserve better treatment than this. But, that's all OK. As long as we all still have our little yellow "I Support Our Troops" ribbon stuck to the back of our cars. But then again, I suppose that's why they were magnets. Temporary. Just like our actual support.

__________________
"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." - Susan B. Anthony

"Hedonism with rules isn't hedonism at all, it's the Republican party." - JumpinJesus

It is indisputable that true beauty lies within...but a nice rack sure doesn't hurt.

host

You accuse me of "hovering"....there were no responses to the thread OP until mine. My participation was unique....and it was at an end until you and tecoyah "came after me", for what justification/motivation, I still do not comprehend.

Five of the seven points...points I reposted in my last post....listed in the article in the thread OP, had to do directly with torture by American troops, of Iraqis or mistreatment of American troops of Iraqis...some (or most) of it without provocation from the Iraqis....beyond their being in the wrong place....places where there were angry or disfunctional...US troops.

....and I respond with an opinion piece that decries the source that instills this anti-humanitarian mindset in the troops, and you post that I'm dropping "torture bombs"?

Since everything directed at me, by both you and tecoyah, is in drect contradiction of what I know that the OP was about, and what the content of all of my posts were about, I am inclined to take your sentiments as a presonal criticism of me....unprovoked....inappropriate.

....and your logic having to do with making the troops out to be "martyrs", "victims" with no responsibility for any harm that they wiullfully inflicted, is just as curious....there....you drew me out....I am compelled to be consistent in where I palce responsibility, and as fair as I can be....how about you?

ubertuber

host, this is a prime example of why we have entreated you, numerous times, to include some reasonable amount of your own thoughts with your voluminous copy-n-paste text. It helps others understand why you quoted the articles and what the connection is - in other words, what your post is supposed to be saying.

It's kind of weak to act like a martyr (in the quoted text here, in my post) when post #2 remains marginally linked to the thread title, and contains little clue from you as to why you made it. What was anyone supposed to think?

__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

pig

hee hee hee...i knew why host posted what he posted, and what the tangential link was. i think its a combination of two aspects; the more general question of where the problem with the cause of the mental health issue lies, and host's posting style:

to the former: it's a question of whether one considers the direct causes of the increased psychological problems of our military to be separable from the systemic problems that have caused them to be there in the first place or not. to wit, bor is obviously correct that the direct experiences of our soldiers is the primary reason that they are going to return with an entire legion of psychological problems. even removed from the questions of why they are there, the ordinary human mind can't be in that situation for any period of time and not come out drastically changed. that's sad and awful in a very direct way; without saying too much i have a family member who is just now really dealing with this....from vietnam.

to the latter, i think host has obviously decided that he is going to ring this bell at every opportunity, as he feels that america is generally asleep at the wheel, and that there is no problem associated with our military presence in the middle east which can be meaningfully separated from the questions of the legitimacy of our nation's involvement.

so i can see it both ways, personally. for rational debate, i think its sometimes better to separate the two issues out such that discussion can be focussed on the OP. at the same time, i can understand host's position. it is kind of hard, in a way, to talk about the awful shit our soldiers have to endure, on our behalf whether we approve of the 'war' or not, without acknowledging the questions about the fundamental nature of the war.

i just don't think host is ever going to post without quote boxes inside politics; its too much a part of his adopted persona and methodology.

/didn't mean to put to many words in host's mouth. just my impressions from following these discussions for a while.

i have to say that i'm a bit dubious as to whether our nation will adequately take care of our returning soldiers or not. and that is truly sad. most americans don't want to acknowledge that the military action is occurring now...i mean, it would seem to be a key strategy point in the way the war is being handled. don't upset the american citizen's life too much. i can't see our country really owning up in any meaningful way...it would require that we really acknowledge what has happened, what is happening, and what will likely happen for some time to come. we're not pulling out of that area for a long time, i don't think.

__________________
You don't love me, you just love my piggy style

roachboy

NOTE: it appears that pigglet and i were posting almost the same thing at the same time....

==========

it seems to me that there are two issues at least being collapsed into each other so far.

one: the deplorable state of health care afforded to military personnel across the board, and particularly those with mental health issues as a result of their military tenures. that this is a problem--and a particular problem for the flag-waving conservative set whose nationalist politics incline administrations like this one to go to war--in this case without justification--but which at the same time cut back on va hospital facilities and staff in order as a function of other aspects of their socio-economic ideology.
this is a real problem. in the series of problems raised in this context, however, it is the easiest of them.


WITHIN THIS LARGEST SET (of all those who pass through a period in the military), there is a subset of people who have been involved in the actual day-to-day grind of combat, which is the material consequence of a fundamentally--uh--problematic administration's absurd policy choices.

WITHIN THIS, there is a subset of people who react to the brutality of the situation they confront by themselves becoming brutal. there is no argument about this: it is self-evidently part of the beast that is a war. it turns out that because the war in iraq is so particularly problematic, the status of this aspect of that war is also particularly problematic---but here i would say--->

there are undoubtedly going to be significant psychological consequences for this phase of their lives for a lot of these people, and i would expect in particular for folk who find themselves/put themselves (i cant judge this--i really cant) in both sets. the state should--to my mind must--provide adequate care for them. if the state is going to put people in the position where they discover that they are capable of things they would not have imagined possible in normal life, then that state is responsible for dealing with the consequences after the fact. that the bush administration, source of a myriad doses of the crassest flagwaving, would also have cut support for the physical and psychological care of military personnel is deplorable. it is beyond deplorable.

but already, things are getting more difficult, and this is not the worst of the problems:

WITHIN THESE TWO SETS, there is another subset: additional mental health problems that are typically associated with people who engage in acts of torture. which the american military (and private contractors/mercenaries) have WITHOUT QUESTION been involved in in the context of the iraq debacle. at one level, the logic behind adequately funding the care of these folk after the fact would follow in a straight line from the above.

ON ANOTHER LEVEL, that same care amounts to a banalization and assimilation of torture as a practice.

this is another problem.
and it is a very difficult problem....and it is not going to go away.
and this is what i took host to be raising above.
for the life of me i cannot see how raising it--even in an inflammatory manner--constitutes a threadjack.
it seems to be one of the central questions the thread is directed at, if you read the whole of the op.

and responding to it is not easy--if you argue that these people were "just following orders" you find yourself in a very shitty logical, political and ethical position--with REALLY problematic historical precedents.

if you take the contrary position, you argue for selective psychological care based on ex-post-facto judgments of particular actions in particular situations which were at the time sanctioned by the military hierarchy--regardless of their legality, regardless of their status as a war crime.

i do not know how this is resolvable, but it sure as hell is germaine.
i understand that folk might not like the question at all, but at least say as much and argue your position rather than try simply to swat the issue away.


aside: when i read host's post (no.2) and before i scrolled past it to read anything else, the only aspect of it that baffled me was the fact of quoting peter cetera. but that always baffles me, quoting peter cetera.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

ubertuber

Mental health is not the only place our troops are underfunded. The issue of military pay, and this budget battle in particular are rather astonishing given the amount of money we spend on our troops, both in absolute numbers and in terms of percentage of budget.

The roll of mental health care, however, may be even more complicated. Some military folks still believe that there is a stigma attached to mental health care in today's armed forces. People are afraid to get the help they'll need because they believe they could be penalized in terms of assignments and promotions.

In the big picture, I'm not sure where people or "soft" initiatives come on the priority list of troop care. Quality of life issues just aren't as sexy as expensive weapons systems that please the legislators that are served both by the extensive lobby and by the manufacturing centers in their districts.


Here's an article from the Army Times about proposed pay increases for military personnel.

The gist of it is that the House Armed Services Committee wants to remedy the pay differential between civilian and military employment by granting military folks a 3.5% pay increase, with more to come. The White House claims that 3% is enough, thank you very much.

__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam