In the first quarter of 2012, the media has publicized an Iraq Veteran killing a Park Ranger in Washington, an Orange County Deputy killing a Marine, an Army Private being stabbed to death by Meth Heads in Washington, and a Staff Sergeant that allegedly killed 16 Afghans in their sleep, along with so many other stories of Violent Veterans. The media is quick to tell us that these are Combat Veterans, but often fail to tell us when the person was tossed out of the military, like in that first case listed, or correct the story when they weren't in Combat at all, or weren't in the military as they had claimed.
In 2008, the NYTimes was on the same hunt, to prove that "Crazed" Combat Veterans were slaughtering American Civilians. They wrote about 121 cases in which someone died. The problem was that in many of those the Veteran was found to be innocent or to have acted in self-defense, while in others the trial had not occurred, and in many it was not murder at all. In those latter cases, it was often a car accident, that helped to boost their body count. When it was all said and done, the numbers demonstrated it was safer to be near a Combat Veteran than to be in the safest big city in America.
But "one is too many."
One case of domestic violence, one murder, or one suicide is "too many." Yeah, that sounds good, but short of locking every American up in solitary confinement, there is NO program that can end all violence in this Nation, any subsection of it, or in any other country.
The question is whether or not the media attention presents a true picture. It sells papers and tunes in viewers when the headline reads "Crazed Combat Veteran Kills Civilians," and they are selling papers. The problem is that by pimping that headline while ignoring headlines about illegal aliens, druggies, and gangbangers killing cops and civilians, the media is creating, purposely, the perception that Our Veterans are violently, deranged lunatics, to be feared by Our Citizens. The evidence does not support that.
PTSD is real, but it does not create, nor justify violence. The Military routinely trains Troops on what the "symptoms" of PTSD are, where to seek "help," and asks a series of questions attempting to identify those that may have PTSD. It includes things like vigilance, depression, gun ownership, and alcohol use as "symptoms." The politicians in 2010 decided that a Veteran does not even need to have had a traumatic event to be diagnosed and paid for PTSD. Still the rates of Soldiers diagnosed with PTSD remain low. The result is that those with PTSD can avoid the diagnosis and those without it can get the paycheck for life.
Why are "symptoms" of PTSD not necessarily a reflection of PTSD? Because many of those "symptoms" are not reflections of PTSD, but rather of military service and/or youth. It is estimated that 7-10% of ALL Americans experience depression. Having a gun proves nothing, except an appreciation for the 2nd Amendment. And 25% of 18-25 year old Americans, not just Veterans, not only use alcohol, but abuse it, according to the Government standards of what alcohol abuse is. Vigilance isn't a symptom of PTSD, but of military service, sharpened by combat service. It isn't a bad thing. It is a survival mechanism. It is the trait of a sheepdog.
A DoJ study suggests that 25% of all College males have committed sexual assault. This is the same age group as those that the military recruits. The Army acts on allegations of improper sexual behavior approximately 3,000 times a year. This includes domestic violence, including attacks on the Soldier, a slap on the butt by one Soldier on another, and rape, including rape of Soldiers by civilians. Whether or not a Commander believes the allegation might hold merit, the incident is investigated and its disposition reported in those 3,000.
That's less than .1% of the Army, contrasted with 25% in the comparably aged College male population. The majority of those investigated are thrown out of the Army, regardless of findings of the investigation, or a finding of guilt/innocence by the judicial authority. The Army has also found that approximately 1/3 of those are false allegations.
But "a quarter to half of all Combat Veterans have PTSD."
No, they don't. Some have speculated that that could be the case, but there is nothing to truly back that up, other than speculation by "experts," who make money by treating mental disorders and want a steady government check for a cash crop. Actual diagnosed cases of PTSD are rare, compared to the speculation, even as the standards for getting the diagnosis have decreased.
The Army in its Goldbook 2012-2020 downplays, but notes that 60,000 Soldiers have been diagnosed with PTSD from 2003-2011. That's well below 1% of Soldiers that have been the Army in that time period. It also notes that 7,624 of those 60,000 had never deployed.That's 12.7% of those diagnosed with PTSD in the Army that didn't "get it" from combat. This compares with 5% of the US Population with PTSD. It goes on to cite the speculation that 20%-30%, rather than less than 1% of Combat Veterans have PTSD.
There is a significant difference between 60,000 diagnosed cases, or 52,300 when those non-combat Veterans are subtracted, and 300,000 speculated cases, so why would so many speculate when there are actual numbers? Because the media is seeking emotional based headlines that sell papers and other organizations are seeking budgetary dollars. The Administration is trying to prove that "rising health care" costs are its predecessor's fault and it "must" charge the Troops for their own care. "Non-profits" are competing for your donations. And Shrinks are trying to get long term customers paid for with your tax dollars. There is virtually no one in "the game" that profits by not playing up the problem.
But who does it hurt? The Veterans themselves. The "Crazed Veteran" headline creates a paranoia in Civilians that their neighbor, employee, or co-worker "may be next" to go off the deep-end. Despite the reality that Our Civilians are safer next to Veteran than in the safest big city in America, if you believe the Combat Veteran is likely to snap, are you going to hire him or the kid that spent his four years in College, where you don't know that there's a 1 in 4 chance he participated in a sexual assault?
Are you going to get close with that Veteran down the street, or avoid him, if you believe the "Crazed Veteran" scenario? The typical human response for those that believe the hype is to maintain a safe distance, to treat the person in a different manner, perhaps with "kid's gloves," deepening the divide between protected and protector.
Under the current Administration, the military has initiated a video it in treatment program. They've found it is more effective than expected, probably because the video conferences are between combat Veterans. This contrasts with either medication to numb the mind of the Veteran, or sessions with a shrink, who generally has no experience in a combat zone.
The Goldbook reports that Troops & Veterans actively involved in their communities are less likely to exhibit symptoms of PTSD. This is partially accounted for in that a "symptom" of PTSD is withdrawal from the community, but it is also a symptom of a cause of PTSD and the Nation's role in it. It is one of the reasons why Viet Nam Veterans have felt the brunt of PTSD. Ostracization by the Nation's protected, condemnation of those that did the Nation's bidding, is a major contributing factor. The entire cycle of hyping up the "dangerous Veteran" as well as the reality that the Nation is more distant from and in large numbers seemingly oblivious to what Our Troops are experiencing contributes to the possibility of Veterans withdrawing from society. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
The Army's Goldbook and the Administration's policies make this worse. The Goldbook strongly suggests that there is a link between disciplinary problems, "at-risk" behavior, and PTSD/TBI, and marks those Soldiers as the target of the Obama purges of the Military. It does not come right out and say that those diagnosed with PTSD or TBI should be thrown out, but lists the "common symptoms" and then says those with those "disciplinary problems" should be targeted for forcible expulsion from the Army.
And that policy is being enacted. The Army has recently published a memo saying it will toss out thousands of Senior NCO's this year, targeting those with "disciplinary" problems.
In the case of one NCO I know of, where the Soldier was attempting to get a loved one care, the NCO was diagnosed as having a severe case of PTSD, not because he had any symptoms, but because he did not. The shrink determined that the combat experience should have a negative effect on him, and because he was still more interested in helping others than in selfish pursuits, he was even worse off than those that were negatively effected. Her prescription was for him to become more selfish, less vigilant, and act less responsibly.
The most effective thing a Veteran can do to overcome the negative effects of PTSD is to share the experiences and war stories with fellow Combat Veterans. The reason for this is that one of the biggest contributors to PTSD is a belief that they had not done enough to save the lives of their fellow Troops. A shrink that spent that era of their life in college binge drinking cannot understand that, nor convincingly state that the Soldier did all that was reasonable and possible.
Only a jury of his peers can hear his testimony and offer the judgement of whether or not all reasonable actions had been taken. No, I'm not talking about court proceedings. I'm talking about telling war stories to buddies that have "been there, done that." The VFW and the American Legion do not state that as part of their mission, but it is one of the most important roles the organizations have. The best "group therapy" sessions are not organized at all, but rather the stories told within the unit, after the unit has returned to garrison, often at Barbecues and at bars, including alcohol.
When the Veteran has left the unit, the VFW affords the Veteran another set of those that know, to serve as the impromptu jury. In previous decades, the VA recognized the effects and set up group therapy sessions, run by combat Veterans, for combat Veterans. No, civilians "don't get it," and can't. There are some things in life that can only be understood by experience. Let's face, I won't ever understand the pains or joys of childbirth either. I can attempt to imagine it, but that won't come close to the reality. Mothers recognize that men won't and children don't understand it, and remind us of it, when we forget that we don't know.
The Military has set about with powerpoints and questionnaires to identify those that might have the "symptoms" of PTSD. It is not working and it will only become less effective, as the effects of current leadership and politicians take effect. The 2012-2020 Army Goldbook gives guidance to Army Leadership as the politician in chief slashes the number of Troops available to fight wars. It demonstrates the problems for Troops who confess to emotional effects of the battlefield. It directly associates "high risk behavior," and "disciplinary problems" with PTSD & TBI, while advocating that those in the former categories get tossed in the early rounds of terminations.
The Troops most likely to have the negative effects have learned that self-preservation requires them to avoid identification as having the "Disorder." The "paperless Army" requires that they fill out and print numerous questionnaires about their "problems." They've learned that if they don't wish to be interrogated by shrinks, and treated with kid's gloves by Officers afraid of a bad mark on their OER's, that the correct answer is "No" to questions of politically incorrect behavior.
But even those that have severe cases of PTSD are unlikely to commit violence against unarmed civilians. That's just not how it works. Having risked their lives to protect the Civilians of Our Nation, Our Combat Veterans maintain an inherent instinct to risk their lives to protect Civilians close to them, from the criminals that would do them harm.
Stumble It!
