- In the past couple years, the Veterans Affairs Department has hired more than 5,000 new therapists and counselors and introduced a new system of suicide prevention at over 150 medical centers (having been pressured to do so by both congress and various veterans groups.
- Veterans account for about one in five of the approximate 30,000 suicides committed each year in the US (according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention).
- This past June, the one-month record for active suicides by veterans was broken at 32.
- The one year record for active-duty Army suicides was broken when it hit 160 between Oct. 2008 to Oct. 2009.
- From 2007 to 2009, the number of calls to the Dept. of Veterans Affairs suicide prevention hotline increased tenfold (from 9,380 to 119,000).
- The veteran suicide prevention hotline has 10,000 rescues under its belt since 2007.
So what exactly does the Pentagon have to say about this? How are they attempting to explain the arising proof that this war may be doing an unprecedented amount of psychological damage on our troops? Well they may as well have said nothing at all and conveyed their message more succinctly by simply throwing their arms up in the air.
Excuse #1:
The report from the US Army place a significant amount of the blame on the military commanders who fail to recognize high-risk behavior among their troops.
First of all, since when does the job of a military commander require the ability for psychiatric observation?
Now, obviously I have no actual military or active-duty experience, but I believe that I have gained some insight into a soldier's life. These men are fighting a war, which means two things. Firstly, one would have to assume that the majority of a military commander's attention and energy is being focused on what? Fighting the war. Once again, I've never been a military commander, but I would think (and hope), that even its most basic responsibilities leave little time for therapy sessions with despondent soldiers. Secondly, considering that these soldiers are consistently being put in near-death situations, frequently being made witness to a grisly display of killing, and are probably constantly sweating their balls off in the Middle-Eastern heat, which one of them wouldn't have an utterly depressed expression on their face at any given moment. Add to that the fact that they are fighting an entirely unpopular war (that has only becoming increasingly unpopular with the release of the Afghan War Diary), with enemies that are often indistinguishable from innocent civilians, and you can pretty much see how easily any American soldier would be starved of sanity.
This claim compels to me to imagine a scene in which a military commander approaches a young distraught soldier sitting with his arms crossed in the corner and asking him why he's not participating in all the fun the platoon is having (maybe doing arts and crafts, duck-duck-goose, or any other of the military's uplifting pass-times between fighting).
Second of all, what exactly can a military commander consider "high-risk behavior"?
Because of the past two wars' fast deployment rate, the US Army has been forced to lower its standards for recruiting and retention. The tool used to lower these standards is a waiver. Waivers are granted to soldiers to excuse behavior that would have made them unfit for service in previous wars. 80,403 waivers were granted in 2004, and 47,478 were given to excuse soldiers who'd committed felonies, misdemeanors, and had histories of substance abuse. These numbers offer a keen explanation to the fact that the amount of soldiers discharged from duty for misconduct has decreased significantly. (Misconduct = high-risk behavior.)
So what we're to understand is that military commanders are expected to care not only for the psychiatric needs of upstanding, mentally-sound soldiers, but of former felons and substance abusers as well? (If that's the case, perhaps every military commander should be required to obtain a Phd. in psychology before taking the position.)
And if the Army is refusing to discharge soldiers who have exhibited misconduct, and instead keeps them in an environment that is emotionally and mentally taxing for even the most psychologically stable soldier, what is the military commander supposed to do? Write them up? Give 'em a slap on the wrist? Lay them down on a couch, interpret a few dreams?
C'mon Pentagon. You can do better than that.
Excuse #2:
Since most new recruits are between 18 and 20 years old, the Pentagon is blaming the fact that this age group is statistically the most high-risk for suicide.
Fact: the suicide rate for soldiers entering the army in their late 20s is three times higher than for those in the aforementioned group.
Are we to believe that the sociological statistics of this age group undermine the statistics of an official military study? It would seem the Pentagon can't hear the words coming out of its own mouth. When the evidence doesn't help you, stereotypes can.
"Oh, those crazy kids, they're always killin' themselves these days. Doesn't matter where they are, who they're with, or who's shootin' at them. They'd do it anyway!"
"Oh, those crazy kids, they're always killin' themselves these days. Doesn't matter where they are, who they're with, or who's shootin' at them. They'd do it anyway!"
The Pentagon's rhetoric is painfully transparent. But then again, who can risk any more bad publicity on a war that has virtually become an international embarrassment?
Excuses aside, the implications of these articles are dizzying. If more and more active-duty soldiers are finding reasons to commit suicide, a whole new meaning can be given to the term "war is hell". Has the nefarious nature of the past two wars in the Middle-East put a new twist on the psychological torture of combat? If so, why?
Is it the obfuscating appearance of the enemy? In this war, death can arrive in the form of any agent, and at any time. In Vietnam, it may have been difficult to tell guerrilla from villager, but if you saw either one in the jungle, you could probably be sure of shooting at him. This is a war that takes place on street corners and alleyways, with an enemy that can seem as innocent as your interpreter.
Or is it the futility of this war that is instilling such feelings of hopelessness in our soldiers? This war, which our government impregnates again and again with every billion we send, has given birth to no victory. Have our soldiers realized something that our leaders haven't?
Is this war un-winnable?
Maybe our soldiers are realizing something. Maybe 32 of them realized it in June.
And the $37 billion on its way overseas?
Consider it 37 billion aspirin, slowly sliding down the throat of the US soldier.
Sounds like a suicidal dose to me.
-Little Brother, Big Mouth-
Excuses aside, the implications of these articles are dizzying. If more and more active-duty soldiers are finding reasons to commit suicide, a whole new meaning can be given to the term "war is hell". Has the nefarious nature of the past two wars in the Middle-East put a new twist on the psychological torture of combat? If so, why?
Is it the obfuscating appearance of the enemy? In this war, death can arrive in the form of any agent, and at any time. In Vietnam, it may have been difficult to tell guerrilla from villager, but if you saw either one in the jungle, you could probably be sure of shooting at him. This is a war that takes place on street corners and alleyways, with an enemy that can seem as innocent as your interpreter.
Or is it the futility of this war that is instilling such feelings of hopelessness in our soldiers? This war, which our government impregnates again and again with every billion we send, has given birth to no victory. Have our soldiers realized something that our leaders haven't?
Is this war un-winnable?
Maybe our soldiers are realizing something. Maybe 32 of them realized it in June.
And the $37 billion on its way overseas?
Consider it 37 billion aspirin, slowly sliding down the throat of the US soldier.
Sounds like a suicidal dose to me.
-Little Brother, Big Mouth-
No comments:
Post a Comment