Iraq Veterans vulnerable to commit suicide

[Buffalo Roam]

Frank examination of the sources of this suffering remains forbidden and fearsome territory for the American public, because it does lead to profound questions of what our purpose is in Iraq that justifies the horrors we are dealing in but not with.

No all it take is for Congress which is now controlled by the Democrats to get of their Dead Ass's and fix the System, and quite playing politics with the lives of the Troops and the Veterans, Poser.

 

[hypewaders]

"... all it take is for Congress which is now controlled by the Democrats to get of their Dead Ass's and fix the System, and quite playing politics with the lives of the Troops and the Veterans..."

First the constituency must articulate what we want the Congress to do to "fix the system"- at the very least, a general demand for increased funding (and taxation) to further the scope and continuity of general veteran healthcare. More focused and effective remedies will require public interest in, and scrutiny of what exactly is happening to our troops. If lacking justification for war is found to be causitive, then it would follow that restoring Congressional (and hence public) oversight of the Executive in wartime would defend us from these outbreaks.

Do you think that the degree to which elective war is justified significantly impacts the mental health of our troops, BR?

 

[countezero]

We all suffer from a lack of knowledge about al-Qaeda and 9/11.

Not all of us: You.

As I have often remarked, there has never been evidence of a serious investigation into the organization that perpetrated the crime. Instead we have watched as the label al-Qaeda has been applied to a wide assortment of insurgents and terrorists without any demonstrated links to the still-mysterious 9-11 organization.

I have addressed this a couple of times in my recent posts. You've chosen to ignore my remarks or haven't had the chance to respond to them yet.

Concerning the identities and backgrounds of the hijackers, and concerning the Arabian roots of the organization, the yawning gaps of information and negligence of investigation is obvious.

No, it's not. I've already addressed this. Again, you've chosen to ignore my remarks or haven't had the chance to respond to them yet.

If you can both be more specific about what you're asking from me, I'll respond in kind.

I was pointing out the fact that you have not addressed any of the points I raised in a previous post, which was a response to your post. That post is quite lengthy and is on the previous page. It shouldn't be too hard to find, if you're interested in responding.

I would be pleased to get beyond these ad-hominem diversions, and return to the topic of this thread.

And I would appreciate it if you quit ascribing fanciful attacks to me. My previous remark was not a personal attack. It was a statement of fact. You broached a subject and then ignored or overlooked data I presented you about that subject. Your reasons for doing this are your own, but the fact it has already happened is self-apparent. I didn't choose this tangent. You did when you decided to defend some inane remarks of Sam's. Now you seem reluctant to address an issue you've culled into this discussion. Why is that?

 

[Echo3Romeo]

So you do disagree with the various theorists - some tested in combat - who hold modern war to be essentially and unavoidably political ?

Not at all. War is the continuation of politics through other means. :itold:

What it boils down to, and what I've been trying to explain, is that the breadth of an individual soldier's experience is so far removed from the macropolitical landscape over which the conflict is presiding that seperating their feelings about the war in Iraq overall from their feelings about whether or not they should be helping the ISF guard a Sadr City marketplace against suicide bombers (or some other discrete task that encompasses the day to day life of every servicemember in Iraq O-6 and below) is not a terribly difficult thing to do. Any soldier who has a problem doing this has no place in the US military, anyway.

If soldiers are not robots, they cannot avoid permanently the moral and ethical implications of what they have seen and done. Duty, honor, and country are (and should be, IMHO) powerful supports and justifications - but is their support and justification in fact independent of the reality - political and otherwise - of the combat situation involved ?

Nobody with a shred of humanity can escape the psychological baggage of committing some of the deeds implicit in soldiering. However, most things can be rationalized to the tune of "what I did was necessary to survive" or "what I did was necessary to save the life of X" or "what I did was necessary to complete our mission and return safely" or something similar. Viewed in such a context, an individual soldier's actions are reconcilable, if not justifiable, to one's self.

No, I did not know that. Your question evokes an often deliberate misunderstanding of Lembke. Lembke considered the original political employment of the term PTSD, when the term first emerged, to have been bullshit. He acknowledged the undeniable psychological problems associated with traumatic experiences, but criticised the isolation or "syndromization" of the victims as being psychologically-flawed; he criticized the notion that the problem came from the sufferers and not the war.

My understanding of his position was indeed inadequate. Thanks for clarifying.

 

[iceaura]

What it boils down to, and what I've been trying to explain, is that the breadth of an individual soldier's experience is so far removed from the macropolitical landscape over which the conflict is presiding that seperating their feelings about the war in Iraq overall from their feelings about whether or not they should be - - Any soldier who has a problem doing this has no place in the US military, anyway.

It's a bit too late if they already are in the military, though, eh?

Basically, you seem to be dodging the question. Allow me to quote it again, in its several forms and sources:

Is it your contention that the actual moral and political foundation of a military action, the reality of the event, has little influence on any but a very few soldiers' esprit de corps, or their reactions to the memories of combat and violence later ?

Duty, honor, and country are (and should be, IMHO) powerful supports and justifications - but is their support and justification in fact independent of the reality - political and otherwise - of the combat situation involved ?

The question put was whether the nature of the missions at hand, the daily business of the actual doings, or the memory-informed reaction and adjustment to civilian return, are different in some influential way for the soldiers of a wrong and unjustified war.
- - -
Do you think that the degree to which elective war is justified significantly impacts the mental health of our troops,

And the related question, once again brought forward by this:

What I am saying is that soldiers take a great deal of pride in being apolitical.
- - -
Not at all. War is the continuation of politics through other means.

Again I quote, as having been unanswered apparently:

involves no larger scale political understanding of the war itself, how and why it should be fought, and for whom. You find this not nearly as important, in a war of occupation, as Ho Chi Minh (say) found it ?

Wwould you agree with Ho Chi Minh's battle general that a soldier is better off without a weapon than without a political understanding of their mission ?

In your answer, to the first or both, perhaps you could employ some of the examples of political aftershock visible here - such as in Buffalo's posts.

 

[Echo3Romeo]

Do you think that the degree to which elective war is justified significantly impacts the mental health of our troops,

No, not particularly. Not as significant as management of the military by the political establishment, or the accuracy of public understanding and appreciation of each servicemember's individual trials and accomplishments, and the accuracy of the media's portrayal of the realities in theater, at least. For OIF, those three weigh heavier on myself and every other servicemember I know of more than what got us there in the first place.

In your answer, to the first or both, perhaps you could employ some of the examples of political aftershock visible here - such as in Buffalo's posts.

I'm not sure what your point is.

 

[iceaura]

For OIF, those three weigh heavier on myself and every other servicemember I know of more than what got us there in the first place.

"In your answer, to the first or both, perhaps you could employ some of the examples of political aftershock visible here - such as in Buffalo's posts. ”

I'm not sure what your point is.

If you read Buffalo's posts, you may notice his agreement with you, and his deep concern with those three factors - but pivotted on the fact that he finds accurate description of certain aspects of the Vietnam War and its civilian context to be a betrayal - a personal betrayal - of himself and his fellow soldiers.

This seems to me pretty obviously connected to the nature of that conflict - as an unjustified and avoidable war.

We are now in another one. And the suicide rates seem to be pretty high.

 

[Buffalo Roam]

If you read Buffalo's posts, you may notice his agreement with you, and his deep concern with those three factors - but pivotted on the fact that he finds accurate description of certain aspects of the Vietnam War and its civilian context to be a betrayal - a personal betrayal - of himself and his fellow soldiers.

This seems to me pretty obviously connected to the nature of that conflict - as an unjustified and avoidable war.

We are now in another one. And the suicide rates seem to be pretty high.

ice, (This seems to me pretty obviously connected to the nature of that conflict - as an unjustified and avoidable war.) that is a judgement made by you.

The biggest factor is still the loss of people important to you, and your own feeling of failure in not being able to do enough to save them, and that feeling is exacerbated by people like the Democrats and the Liberals constant spewing of phrases like the war is lost, the troops are terrorist, the troops are murderers, all the trash that is put in the news from the Demorats, and Liberals that denigrates the efforts of the Troops on the ground.

The biggest thing that I see is also the fact that the Liberals cut and run, quit and waste the lives of those they helped send into the war, it was the Democrats who expanded the Vietnam War with no plan to win at all, only a Containment Strategy.

Remember the Demorats insisted on a vote to Authorize the Use of Military Force, a declaration of WAR, and as usual they split their vote to cover both sides of the fence, and now for political reasons they are attacking those same troops, the traditional stab in the Back from the Liberals and Democrats since the Vietnam Police Action.

The thing I see about the change in reasons for the war, is the wasted effort by the Republicans to find a cause that the Left will support, the Strategy has changed to fit the actions of the enemy, and we are now making progress in securing Iraq, but you and the rest of the Anti-War, Anti Troop, crowd will not see any progress because to recognize progress destroys your belief that this is a un-winnable war, but it can be won, and now seems to be moving towards a stable Iraq, just one front in a world war brought to us by the Radicle Islamic Extremist, who's world vision is a Moslem Caliphate returning to the 14th century, with them as the rulers.

 

[Grantywanty]

ispewing of phrases like the war is lost, the troops are terrorist, the troops are murderers, .

Could you give us a link to somewhere Democrats and Liberals have said that the troops are terrorist?

 

[Buffalo Roam]

YouTube - John Kerry calls American troops terrorists
John Kerry calls American troops terrorists .... Kerry. I can see how your policy is much better "Iraqi's should be terrorizing their own people. ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXaoavV1d4s&feature=related

ConservativeLaw: Kerry Calls Troops Terrorists
Kerry Calls Troops Terrorists. While appearing on"Face the Nation" John Kerry expressed his true feelings about our military men and women. ...
http://conservativelaw.blogspot.com/2005/12/kerry-calls-troops-terrorists_06.html

Durbin Apology - Not Accepted!
But after the deluge of protesting letters, faxes, emails and phone calls Durbin received and his "friend," Chicago mayor Richard Daley (okay, ...
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/6/27/85316.shtml

OpenCongress - John Murtha In The News
time line for the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, according to Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., ... John Murtha calling our troops murderers, and on and on. ...
http://www.opencongress.org/people/news/400286_john_murtha

 

[S.A.M.]

Anyone who thinks going into a country and doing this to its people when they are minding their own business is justified, would have to be abnormal. The ones who commit suicide are the normal ones

 

[countezero]

Sam you crack me up...

 

[S.A.M.]

Tell me do those people look terrorised to you? Are they feeling "cracked up" d'you think? Or liberated? What will be the state of mind of that soldier throwing the napalm bombs as he sees those children running, burning as the napalm hits their skin?

Will he consider himself a hero who deserves a medal? Or a POS who should kill himself?

 

[Grantywanty]

YouTube - John Kerry calls American troops terrorists
John Kerry calls American troops terrorists .... Kerry. I can see how your policy is much better "Iraqi's should be terrorizing their own people. ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXaoavV1d4s&feature=related

My feed is slow right now so I am going to stop with this one.
1) he did not call the soldiers terrorists.
2) he said they went into homes and terrorized Iraqi families. This is clearly a fact and a part of what happens over there. Or do you think these families do not feel terror. This does not make them terrorists. The first time my kid saw Santa on the big screen she was terrified. I cannot therefore draw the conclusion that Santa or the filmmakers are terrorists.

Nice try.

 

[Buffalo Roam]

My feed is slow right now so I am going to stop with this one.
1) he did not call the soldiers terrorists.
2) he said they went into homes and terrorized Iraqi families. This is clearly a fact and a part of what happens over there. Or do you think these families do not feel terror. This does not make them terrorists. The first time my kid saw Santa on the big screen she was terrified. I cannot therefore draw the conclusion that Santa or the filmmakers are terrorists.

Nice try.

To say someone terrorizes, is to lable them as terrorist, and it was carried by al Jeezryia, as Kerry labeling U.S. Troops as Terrorist.

 

[Buffalo Roam]

Tell me do those people look terrorised to you? Are they feeling "cracked up" d'you think? Or liberated? What will be the state of mind of that soldier throwing the napalm bombs as he sees those children running, burning as the napalm hits their skin?

Will he consider himself a hero who deserves a medal? Or a POS who should kill himself?

No he will consider himself as a man who did his job, those bombs were dropped against enemy solders, a military target, and were not targeted against the children, and if you look closely the troops pictured are South Vietnamese, which means that it was a Vietnamese action and the air strike was probably called in and done by Vietnamese aircraft.

One other thing, napalm sticks to skin, if that girl had been hit in a napalm strike she would be a crispy critter, I do agree she was burned, but I doubt it was napalm, the other reason that I doubt she was a victim of a napalm strike is that napalm leaves a black oily residue over everything it touches and in the area.

 

[countezero]

I wasn't aware soldiers could "throw" napalm bombs (like grenades, one imagines). It was always my understanding naplam came in a cannister and was dropped from planes and helicopters. So is Sam delusional? Or am I mistaken?

 

[quadraphonics]

No he will consider himself as a man who did his job, those bombs were dropped against enemy solders, a military target, and were not targeted against the children, and if you look closely the troops pictured are South Vietnamese, which means that it was a Vietnamese action and the air strike was probably called in and done by Vietnamese aircraft.

Yes, it's well-known that the strike in that picture was conducted by the Vietnamese air force. The specific bomb in question was dropped on the initiative of the pilot of the plane, who mistook the victims for NVA personnel. We're talking about a terrible mistake made in the heat of the moment by a Vietnamese pilot. There were American advisory personnel way up the chain of command involved in the decision to launch incendiary strikes on the village..

 

[S.A.M.]

Yes, it's well-known that the strike in that picture was conducted by the Vietnamese air force. The specific bomb in question was dropped on the initiative of the pilot of the plane, who mistook the victims for NVA personnel. We're talking about a terrible mistake made in the heat of the moment by a Vietnamese pilot. There were American advisory personnel way up the chain of command involved in the decision to launch incendiary strikes on the village.

Also: Kim Phus has already formally accepted the apologies of the United States, and forgiven us. So S.A.M. is a bit late to the party when it comes to browbeating us with that photo.

Of course, the Americans had nothing to do with it. /sarcasm/

They were merely twiddling thumbs in Vietnam, until they finally got bored and went home. Just like <insert any country with US military intervention>. Just a vacation. Like Iraq. Didja get around to apologising to any of the others yet?

According to the Washington Post, 19 December 1997, Plummer says he received a call from an American military adviser working with a South Vietnamese army unit, who requested an air strike on the village of Trang Bang. He relayed the request for a strike to U.S. Air Force personnel, who asked the South Vietnamese air force to launch it. Later, he saw the photo in Stars and Stripes, and recognized the bombing as one in which he was involved.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phan_Thị_Kim_Phúc

 

[Buffalo Roam]

I did some missions for BDA, and have seen bodies burned by napalm, one other thing is the fact that the clothing that was worn by the Vietnamese were generally rayon, or silk, rather flammable material, and any number of thing could have set her clothing on fire.

The other fact is that I don't think the burns are from Napalm, as I said napalm sticks to everything it hits, and it leaves a black oily residue, that is difficult to wash off, and it burns flesh to 3rd degree charcoal burns..