4. Combat related deaths since invasion of Iraq through 11/22/07
2. Veteran deaths by suicide in 2005
3. Desertions in 2007
1. Combat Deaths 5/06 through 5/07
3876
6256
4698
983
In my last post I wrote that I couldn't think of anything worthwhile to say about the current state of our nation that was not already being well and frequently said. But as Lt. Columbo might say there is one little thing more before I can get back to my pseudo scientific ramblings about real scientific issues. CBS recently did a series on the Veteran Administration's pathetic treatment of injured troops returning from Iraq and Afghanistan, especially as it relates to traumatic brain injury and Post Traumatic Stress Disorders. What I have to say is going to be a bitter pill to swallow, and the way I am going to present my thoughts is far more controversial and confrontational than should be necessary,
Support Our Troops
The conceptual basis of these three words in present day America is first of all an egregious and dangerous lie. It is linguistic dishonesty at its worst, a point I will not seek to justify here because I have already said what I have to say about language in my chapter on Words.
Likewise the fact that our government's use and treatment of our troops is far closer to betrayal than support is well documented. The approach I am taking examines how these three words are perceived and acted on by the average American citizen, including those with family and loved ones currently in the service of our country in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the impact of that support on those soldiers. Here is an example of the statistics that compelled this blog.
Support Our Troops
The conceptual basis of these three words in present day America is first of all an egregious and dangerous lie. It is linguistic dishonesty at its worst, a point I will not seek to justify here because I have already said what I have to say about language in my chapter on Words.
Likewise the fact that our government's use and treatment of our troops is far closer to betrayal than support is well documented. The approach I am taking examines how these three words are perceived and acted on by the average American citizen, including those with family and loved ones currently in the service of our country in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the impact of that support on those soldiers. Here is an example of the statistics that compelled this blog.
Partial Records of Troop Death Toll Since Invasion of Iraq
I was not able to gather data in a format from which I could make a statistically valid graph.
However the numbers are so far beyond belief that I felt I had to show them in graphical form. I have documented the numbers the best I could and describe each element in the corresponding numbers below.
However the numbers are so far beyond belief that I felt I had to show them in graphical form. I have documented the numbers the best I could and describe each element in the corresponding numbers below.
1 These are DOD numbers but they list fatalities monthly so I just picked 12 consecutive months. Note that all the years are not the same so the graph is a little apple/orangie but the imbalance is so vast the graph is not deceptive.
2. The suicide count is from the CBS special report, and it includes both troops on active duty and those that had been discharged. The DOD does not record suicide totals so CBS requested the numbers from all 50 states. Only 45 states responded so the actual count would presumedly be higher. Additionally the 2005 suicides would likely have included some veterans discharged prior to the Iraq invasion. But the CBS study showed that the suicide rate for troops aged 20-24 (who were almost certainly veterans of the current conflict) were 3 to 4 times higher than the same age group in the general population. In any case the numbers document what can only be described as a suicide epidemic.
3. I belive that counting the desertions along with the suicides is valid because they both relate to troops who found their circumstances so intolerable that they took drastic action to escape.
4. Another even more painful, and shameful, truth within the data is to compare the number of troops tragically removed from duty either by suicide or desertion with those killed in combat.
2. The suicide count is from the CBS special report, and it includes both troops on active duty and those that had been discharged. The DOD does not record suicide totals so CBS requested the numbers from all 50 states. Only 45 states responded so the actual count would presumedly be higher. Additionally the 2005 suicides would likely have included some veterans discharged prior to the Iraq invasion. But the CBS study showed that the suicide rate for troops aged 20-24 (who were almost certainly veterans of the current conflict) were 3 to 4 times higher than the same age group in the general population. In any case the numbers document what can only be described as a suicide epidemic.
3. I belive that counting the desertions along with the suicides is valid because they both relate to troops who found their circumstances so intolerable that they took drastic action to escape.
4. Another even more painful, and shameful, truth within the data is to compare the number of troops tragically removed from duty either by suicide or desertion with those killed in combat.
Number of troops "eliminated" by the hands of our enemies in the Iraq conflict.
Number of troops "eliminated" by their own hand during only one year of that conflict.
3876
10954
3878
10954.00
7752
320200
310080
10120
7752
2368 remainder
2.82
By way of Draconian reiteration, analyzing the data using an ancient and elegant mathematical formula called long division, it becomes heartbreakingly clear that during one year of the Iraq war almost three times as many troops found their circumstances so intolerable that they either committed suicide or deserted as were killed in combat. And by way of well worn cliché these tragic consequences are only the tip of the iceberg in terms of the mental and social damage being done to our soldiers. A recent report shows that of the men and women who served in Iraq during 2005 and 2006, 28.3 percent had developed mental health problems. Veterans make up only 11 percent of the population, but are approximately 25 percent of the homeless. A veteran's advocate said "We're beginning to see, across the country, the first trickle of this generation of warriors in homeless shelters, but we anticipate that it''s going to be a tsunami."
Phil Landis, chairman of Veterans Village of San Diego
That concern is echoed by other veteran's advocates who say "such an early presence of veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan at shelters does not bode well for the future. It took roughly a decade for the lives of Vietnam veterans to unravel to the point that they started showing up among the homeless. Advocates worry that intense and repeated deployments leave newer veterans particularly vulnerable."
The Sky is Falling
"If these numbers don't wake up this country, nothing will."
Sen. Patty Murray, D-WA
Still sleeping out there? I was afraid so. Asleep or comatose- it's hard to tell the difference. And even if enough of us wake up sufficiently to demand action in the form of a massive increase in the level of physical and psychological care for our returning veterans it would only be a band-aid to cover a gaping, metathetical wound. We had and still have a precursor to the coming deluge of damaged souls following Viet Nam. And no it is not the same as the "shell shock" of earlier wars. What to do about this pandemic of disabled men and women who, for the most part, only wanted to serve their country will get lots of media attention if not much concrete action. But that, to scarf up another ancient saying is like locking the barn door after the horses are stolen. As a nation we are not even close to understanding why this is happening. Here is part of the cause- and why.
What does this phrase mean beyond the simple minded counter that we are supporting our troops by bringing them home alive? What does it mean to those who broadcast it ? Generally it means things like telling our troops that they are our heroes, that they are fighting terrorism over there to keep us safe over here, that they are defending our freedom, that God is on their side. We must thank them- send them gifts and encouraging messages, welcome them back to their old lives with open arms and praise. Especially for those with loved ones over there any other course of action is unthinkable. But we need to think about it.
Individuals have many different reasons for enlisting in the armed services. Some may be motivated by the signing bonus and the promise of college education. They may have no desire to fight for anything except their discharge date. Some gang members, so I have heard, join to get weapons and explosives training which they will put to profitable use post discharge. Many will enlist out a sense of patriotism specifically to join in the war against terror. True believers or cynics, it matters not once they sign up. From that moment on their individual beliefs, their values, their degree of love for their country, their hopes and dreams are irrelevant. They have absolutely no decision making power with regard to foreign policy or tactical military decisions. They go where they are told to go and do what they are told to do. Their sole responsibility is to obey orders or face serious consequences. There is nothing intrinsically heroic about their exposure to danger--. some may respond heroically to the dangers they face; some may do great things, some may do evil things. Some will earn rewards, some may incur punishment, but none of the policy makers give a damn what they think in terms of decision making.
And yet just as they are told where to go and what to do, so they are told what to believe. This is not a specific individual command, it is quite simply what the Commander-in- Chief publicly states the purpose and goals of their actions are. There is no tangible way to measure the effectiveness of this directive, nonetheless there are powerful implicit persuasions to believe the official version of what they are doing there. First of course is simply that the Commander-in-Chief said it, the troops owe him unquestioned allegiance and obedience, and that goes a long way toward believing what he says. How could their Commander-in-Chief place them in harms way for reasons other than those he gives for their deployment? This is not about work hours or coffee breaks- this is about their lives. Surely the cause must be just for their leaders to put their lives on the line. Believing the official line is their emotional life raft in a tumultuous sea. Basically the same imperatives apply to the loved ones of the troops. The need to believe is great, to disbelieve opens a forbidding, fearsome doorway.
But today there is a powerful countervailing factor that did not exist in the Second World War. When our troops stormed ashore at Normandy there was no doubt that the country was behind them. And while information about the war and our cause was minimal due to earlier technology, all the news and opinions that did trickle down to the troops on the ground was consistent with what they could see with their own eyes and why they believed they were fighting. Today's troops are confronted with a pervasive effluvium of data that points to a reality in stark opposition to the official line. The effects of these contradictions vary from soldier to soldier but it is the single most influential element in determining how well the troops cope with their combat experiences once they return to the safety of their own country, family and society.
Way back there about 1957 as I remember there was a psychiatrist by the name of Gregory Bateson, who was most well known because he was once married to famed anthropologist Margaret Mead. He developed something called the double bind, which he proposed as a cause of schizophrenia. That theory was eventually discarded as science began to uncover the physiological causes of schizophrenia and other psychotic conditions. But while it didn't do what Bateson thought it did it is indeed a very powerful influence on those unlucky enough to get caught in its web.
In its simplest form a double bind requires two or more people. Think of them as the mark(s) and the perpetrator(s) ( M, P). It requires what the psy folks call a primary injunction, that is some interaction between P and M wherein P is in a position of "authority" and makes a statement or directs M to do, or not do, something. At the same time there is a secondary, typically unspoken injunction in the communication that contradicts the primary injunction. The double bind only works when M does not pick up on the contradiction and challenge it.
For example suppose there is a mother (P) who had planned on having a professional singing career. Further suppose that on the night of her high school prom she succumbed to the permissive atmosphere, terminated her virginity, and became pregnant. And that she had strong fundamental religious beliefs that forbade abortion, even putting the child up for adoption, so she hod no choice within her belief system other than marry the child's father, give up her career dreams, and become a "good" mother. As a result of her conflicted emotions she becomes anxious when receiving physical expressions of affection/love. This puts a strain on her relationship with her husband and is the frequent subject of arguments. But she also feels anxious when her child shows her affection, yet she has no morally acceptable way of rejecting his touch. So when her child (M) climbs up in her lap obviously wanting to be held, she might say "I love you honey but you go outside and play, you need the fresh air". The child senses the mother's stiffness, but has no way of correctly interpreting it. He has no choice but to obey his mother, no way of resolving the conflict between his desire for affection with his mother's stiffness. The easiest way for him to adapt to the situation is to believe that he really wants to go outside and play. Bateson argued that continued exposure to the double bind can eventually lead to the child responding to many things in his environment as though they also were double binds, and that it is this prolonged pattern development that produces the symptoms of schizophrenia.
There are many variations of the double bind . Most of them are harmless and easy to evade. A salesperson P might say to an as yet undecided customer M "do you want to pay for that in cash or by credit card ?" [Ed. Note OK, this is where things are going to get a bit complicated, and I hope I can manage the concepts enough to make sense.]
The Double Bind a 'la Iraq
A number of unique factors make the double bind as it applies to our troops in Iraq particularly damaging. The tertiary injunction, that of the ever present danger of instant death or injury, is in itself not unique to Iraq. At some level the trauma experienced by the troops landing at Normandy would seem to have been even more intense and potentially damaging because the danger took place in total isolation from life as they knew it before combat. In Iraq the troops have the possibility of real time connection with family and friends through e-mails, videos, media broadcasts, etc. One would expect that this real world connection would reduce the potential for trauma related mental disorders following return to civilian life. Indeed, reducing the emotional toll paid by our troops in battle is the sine qua non of the support the troops effort. Although I am skeptical (some would say sarcastically cynical) of efforts to explain complex issues by reducing them to a few discrete elements, that process can yield soft signs (please refer to my fancy new site search tool) to assist one toward better understanding.
Merely having an obligatory primary injunction and a contradictory secondary injunction does not produce a double bind, one can usually weigh one against the other and make a choice. To make an unwieldy metaphor even more obscure that process is at the heart of our justice system wherein the prosecution and the defense present mutually exclusive versions of an event(s). The jury then weighs the evidence and renders a verdict. In a double bind circumstance the equivalent trial process is either truncated or missing. I will refer to this aspect as the Intervening Injunction. Since I seem to be running on a bit here with the verbiage I will try to clarify my thoughts with another one of them graphic things.
Phil Landis, chairman of Veterans Village of San Diego
That concern is echoed by other veteran's advocates who say "such an early presence of veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan at shelters does not bode well for the future. It took roughly a decade for the lives of Vietnam veterans to unravel to the point that they started showing up among the homeless. Advocates worry that intense and repeated deployments leave newer veterans particularly vulnerable."
The Sky is Falling
"If these numbers don't wake up this country, nothing will."
Sen. Patty Murray, D-WA
Still sleeping out there? I was afraid so. Asleep or comatose- it's hard to tell the difference. And even if enough of us wake up sufficiently to demand action in the form of a massive increase in the level of physical and psychological care for our returning veterans it would only be a band-aid to cover a gaping, metathetical wound. We had and still have a precursor to the coming deluge of damaged souls following Viet Nam. And no it is not the same as the "shell shock" of earlier wars. What to do about this pandemic of disabled men and women who, for the most part, only wanted to serve their country will get lots of media attention if not much concrete action. But that, to scarf up another ancient saying is like locking the barn door after the horses are stolen. As a nation we are not even close to understanding why this is happening. Here is part of the cause- and why.
What does this phrase mean beyond the simple minded counter that we are supporting our troops by bringing them home alive? What does it mean to those who broadcast it ? Generally it means things like telling our troops that they are our heroes, that they are fighting terrorism over there to keep us safe over here, that they are defending our freedom, that God is on their side. We must thank them- send them gifts and encouraging messages, welcome them back to their old lives with open arms and praise. Especially for those with loved ones over there any other course of action is unthinkable. But we need to think about it.
Individuals have many different reasons for enlisting in the armed services. Some may be motivated by the signing bonus and the promise of college education. They may have no desire to fight for anything except their discharge date. Some gang members, so I have heard, join to get weapons and explosives training which they will put to profitable use post discharge. Many will enlist out a sense of patriotism specifically to join in the war against terror. True believers or cynics, it matters not once they sign up. From that moment on their individual beliefs, their values, their degree of love for their country, their hopes and dreams are irrelevant. They have absolutely no decision making power with regard to foreign policy or tactical military decisions. They go where they are told to go and do what they are told to do. Their sole responsibility is to obey orders or face serious consequences. There is nothing intrinsically heroic about their exposure to danger--. some may respond heroically to the dangers they face; some may do great things, some may do evil things. Some will earn rewards, some may incur punishment, but none of the policy makers give a damn what they think in terms of decision making.
And yet just as they are told where to go and what to do, so they are told what to believe. This is not a specific individual command, it is quite simply what the Commander-in- Chief publicly states the purpose and goals of their actions are. There is no tangible way to measure the effectiveness of this directive, nonetheless there are powerful implicit persuasions to believe the official version of what they are doing there. First of course is simply that the Commander-in-Chief said it, the troops owe him unquestioned allegiance and obedience, and that goes a long way toward believing what he says. How could their Commander-in-Chief place them in harms way for reasons other than those he gives for their deployment? This is not about work hours or coffee breaks- this is about their lives. Surely the cause must be just for their leaders to put their lives on the line. Believing the official line is their emotional life raft in a tumultuous sea. Basically the same imperatives apply to the loved ones of the troops. The need to believe is great, to disbelieve opens a forbidding, fearsome doorway.
But today there is a powerful countervailing factor that did not exist in the Second World War. When our troops stormed ashore at Normandy there was no doubt that the country was behind them. And while information about the war and our cause was minimal due to earlier technology, all the news and opinions that did trickle down to the troops on the ground was consistent with what they could see with their own eyes and why they believed they were fighting. Today's troops are confronted with a pervasive effluvium of data that points to a reality in stark opposition to the official line. The effects of these contradictions vary from soldier to soldier but it is the single most influential element in determining how well the troops cope with their combat experiences once they return to the safety of their own country, family and society.
Way back there about 1957 as I remember there was a psychiatrist by the name of Gregory Bateson, who was most well known because he was once married to famed anthropologist Margaret Mead. He developed something called the double bind, which he proposed as a cause of schizophrenia. That theory was eventually discarded as science began to uncover the physiological causes of schizophrenia and other psychotic conditions. But while it didn't do what Bateson thought it did it is indeed a very powerful influence on those unlucky enough to get caught in its web.
In its simplest form a double bind requires two or more people. Think of them as the mark(s) and the perpetrator(s) ( M, P). It requires what the psy folks call a primary injunction, that is some interaction between P and M wherein P is in a position of "authority" and makes a statement or directs M to do, or not do, something. At the same time there is a secondary, typically unspoken injunction in the communication that contradicts the primary injunction. The double bind only works when M does not pick up on the contradiction and challenge it.
For example suppose there is a mother (P) who had planned on having a professional singing career. Further suppose that on the night of her high school prom she succumbed to the permissive atmosphere, terminated her virginity, and became pregnant. And that she had strong fundamental religious beliefs that forbade abortion, even putting the child up for adoption, so she hod no choice within her belief system other than marry the child's father, give up her career dreams, and become a "good" mother. As a result of her conflicted emotions she becomes anxious when receiving physical expressions of affection/love. This puts a strain on her relationship with her husband and is the frequent subject of arguments. But she also feels anxious when her child shows her affection, yet she has no morally acceptable way of rejecting his touch. So when her child (M) climbs up in her lap obviously wanting to be held, she might say "I love you honey but you go outside and play, you need the fresh air". The child senses the mother's stiffness, but has no way of correctly interpreting it. He has no choice but to obey his mother, no way of resolving the conflict between his desire for affection with his mother's stiffness. The easiest way for him to adapt to the situation is to believe that he really wants to go outside and play. Bateson argued that continued exposure to the double bind can eventually lead to the child responding to many things in his environment as though they also were double binds, and that it is this prolonged pattern development that produces the symptoms of schizophrenia.
There are many variations of the double bind . Most of them are harmless and easy to evade. A salesperson P might say to an as yet undecided customer M "do you want to pay for that in cash or by credit card ?" [Ed. Note OK, this is where things are going to get a bit complicated, and I hope I can manage the concepts enough to make sense.]
The Double Bind a 'la Iraq
A number of unique factors make the double bind as it applies to our troops in Iraq particularly damaging. The tertiary injunction, that of the ever present danger of instant death or injury, is in itself not unique to Iraq. At some level the trauma experienced by the troops landing at Normandy would seem to have been even more intense and potentially damaging because the danger took place in total isolation from life as they knew it before combat. In Iraq the troops have the possibility of real time connection with family and friends through e-mails, videos, media broadcasts, etc. One would expect that this real world connection would reduce the potential for trauma related mental disorders following return to civilian life. Indeed, reducing the emotional toll paid by our troops in battle is the sine qua non of the support the troops effort. Although I am skeptical (some would say sarcastically cynical) of efforts to explain complex issues by reducing them to a few discrete elements, that process can yield soft signs (please refer to my fancy new site search tool) to assist one toward better understanding.
Merely having an obligatory primary injunction and a contradictory secondary injunction does not produce a double bind, one can usually weigh one against the other and make a choice. To make an unwieldy metaphor even more obscure that process is at the heart of our justice system wherein the prosecution and the defense present mutually exclusive versions of an event(s). The jury then weighs the evidence and renders a verdict. In a double bind circumstance the equivalent trial process is either truncated or missing. I will refer to this aspect as the Intervening Injunction. Since I seem to be running on a bit here with the verbiage I will try to clarify my thoughts with another one of them graphic things.
Once more.
Continued Here
US 'N The Troops