Rarely do I discuss PTSD and there's a reason for it. Most of what is written about it is sensationalist, inflated, and aimed in one way or another to attain money for someone. It's a political football that those that know the truth feel powerless to discuss honestly for being perceived as callous and uncaring. And most efforts surrounding PTSD are counter-productive to actually preventing or assisting the individual touched by it.
Let's start with the acknowledgement that PTSD is real and those facing the challenge should be given every tool in dealing with it. This isn't just the responsibility of the Military because our political leaders sent Warriors onto the battlefield. It's a basic employer responsibility to deal with the health issues resulting from the terms of employment. The current moves by the Administration to place greater financial burden on Veterans to pay for their own health care, for wounds caused by their employment by the federal government isn't just an outrage because they were promised healthcare in return for the risks they took, but a basic outrage of any (self-insured) employer that tries to get out of responsibilities to cover on the job injuries.
I will also point out that no one survives the battlefield unchanged. While these changes will appear alien to civilians who have never experienced the battlefield, these changes are not necessarily bad. Some of the "symptoms" associated with PTSD are very positive, though may need refinement to not scare civilians. And there are differences between battlefield PTSD and civilians who have experienced a traumatic event and are scarred by it. Even while some symptoms may be the same, the causes mean treatments must be different.
Recently, the Army decided that gun ownership is also a symptom of PTSD. This is ludricous. Not all Troops are equally trained in weapons handling, but having the means to deal with a criminal threat is a comfort to the mind of a person who is accustomed to having a weapon within arms reach at all times. One of the worst policies of some Commanders is to avoid weapons training. In the Military and in Civilian World, some think that weapons proficiency increases the chances of an errant shooting. The converse is true. The more comfortable an individual is in their own weapons skills, the less likely they are to use the weapon prematurely. If a person knows they can draw a pistol and put two rounds in the target in under a second, they don't feel compelled to pull it from the holster when the threat is just a bad feeling.
Some of the "symptoms" are more a reflection of puritanical ideals of American society, even if embraced by both ideological sides of the debate. An example of this is the current government position that 4 drinks a night constitutes alcoholism. By this standard, nearly every German citizen or Frenchman would be considered an alcoholic. Some people just like the taste of wine or beer. Some nationalities drink alcoholic beverages as the primary source of non-infected liquids. They don't drink for the effects or to excess, but rather for the taste. There is a big difference between an individual who downs a six-pack in an hour to get a buzz and an individual that drinks it over the course of an evening, with no change in mental capacity.
PTSD numbers are inflated. By lowering the bar of what constitutes PTSD, they've increased the number diagnosed with it. Worse, they've "calculated" inflated numbers based on small numbers of "polled" samples. Of course, this was done with "the best intentions." The proponents of treating PTSD are trying to get more money budgeted to treating it. Of course the proponents of such things are usually on the receiving end of that money, whether it is through newspaper subscriptions, budgetary considerations, online advertising, or as a "Non-Profit" that pays executives and volunteers while tugging on the heartstrings of Patriotic Citizens.
These same organizations that report inflated numbers also spotlight the most extreme cases. This is done to reinforce the mantra that "something must be done." While some cases involve a reclusiveness by Veterans, others play up drug use, or violence in the afflicted. Suicidal Tendencies or Actions becomes an associated risk. Again, this issue is inflated. Suicide in the military has only recently attained the levels of the same representative population in the civilian world. This is after 10 years of war and mulitple deployments, with no distinction made between non-combat Veterans and those with multiple tours. Again, this is not to downplay the impact of suicide or to say that nothing should be done to prevent it being the choice made, but to say that sensationalism does not assist in finding the right counter-measures. And the right thing is not mandatory briefings, but targeted training and proper resources to the potential suicide. It is certainly not a bus ad campaign in Los Angeles.
All Troops are changed by Military Service and all Warriors are changed by the Combat Experience, but that doesn't mean that all Combat Veterans are negatively impacted. Some of those changes may have a negative effect, such as procrastinating dealing with a challenge in life until the challenges seem insurmountable. But, if the Military and VA allow for dealing with that symptom without deeming the individual a victim of PTSD, it could allow for PTSD to be prevented in that individual.
The stock American response to health issues is to prescribe a pill. This is often detrimental to the health of the pill popper. One cannot watch commercials on pills for depression without noting the irony that so many have a side effect of suicidal tendencies. Many of the pills prescribed to Combat Vets to deal with PTSD include a numbness to reality. Instead of teaching the Veteran how to deal with the changes, these pills instead numb the Veteran from reacting to it. This doesn't change the reality or "fix" the underlying issues, but instead paints over what is really going on.
Part of the campaign to raise awareness of PTSD hypes up the effects and inflates the numbers, creating the perception in the civilian population that Combat Veterans have a hair trigger to violence, and hence the civilian population begins to fear being too close to Veterans. This is a large factor in the increased unemployment rates in Veterans and compounds the problem. It is also patently false that Veterans are prone to violence against civilians.
There is no safer place in America than beside a Veteran. If a criminal threatens those around a Veteran, the Vet may well commit violence against the criminal, protecting once again Our Citizens. This is far different than the misportrayal that a Veteran will initiate violence against law-abiding citizens. But the disconnect with her protectors leads to the susceptibility of citizens of fearing Our Veterans, and the government perpetuates the myth with advisories on who may commit workplace violence.
The political spectrum is the most damaging to Veterans. One side of the aisle uses the issue to pretend they care and the other side refuses to counter the arguments for fear of the backlash. Veterans are not victims, and the bulk of Veterans don't like being portrayed as such. Our Veterans have a tendency to be more aware of the issues than the politicians would like, and it's a tad harder to herd them into a voting block to be exploited on slogans and false claims.
There are attempts to do so, even by politically active Veterans more loyal to party than brothers. The IAVA is based upon it, but their partisanship shows up in their Congressional scorecards and blind support for everything one side of the aisle says or does. Today's world of politics is simply too complicated and convoluted to support a politician based on a set of votes. A bill in Congress that raises the future budget of the VA will often also have provisions to raise taxes or fund the school of a particular Congressional District. While the future budget of the VA only amounts to a recommendation, the raising of taxes is often immediate. Most bills are written that way so that pet projects get funded and future political campaigns can play on it.
There is probably a provision in every bill before Congress that can be legitimately opposed by someone and until Congress writes its own bills about single issues, instead of forwarding a copy of the lobbies that pay their campaigns and attaching their own issues to it, this will continue.
PTSD is real and those that face it deserve all means available to overcome it, but the misportrayals that lead to fear in our citizenry and unemployment in Our Veterans increase the liklihood of the negative effects of PTSD along with diminishing the likelihood that those that really need assistance to push through it will chance losing their 2nd Amendment rights, even with the promise of a paycheck for life, to get the help they need and deserve. They may understand they're not dealing with the challenges as well as they should, but they know they're not a deranged victim.
There are real Veterans out there dealing with PTSD in the right ways for the right reasons, but the overall number of organizations inflating numbers and exaggerating the effects cause this Veteran to be skeptical of all organizations claiming the mantle of PTSD as their issue. This skepticism should not be taken as an indictment of all that discuss it, but rather as a factor in why this Veteran rarely addresses it, or promotes those that do. In the end, some of the best treatment a Veteran can get is just going down to the VFW and conversing with those that learned to think the same way, about everyday matters, and the latest NASCAR race. Here, they learn that they're not abnormal and are dealing with many of the same things as their brothers before them.
Stumble It!
