Of the crises facing American troops today, suicide ranks among the most emotionally wrenching ”” and baffling. Over the course of nearly 12 years and two wars, suicide among active-duty troops has risen steadily, hitting a record of 350 in 2012. That total was twice as many as a decade before and surpassed not only the number of American troops killed in Afghanistan but also the number who died in transportation accidents last year.
Even with the withdrawal from Iraq and the pullback in Afghanistan, the rate of suicide within the military has continued to rise significantly faster than within the general population, where it is also rising. In 2002, the military’s suicide rate was 10.3 per 100,000 troops, well below the comparable civilian rate. But today the rates are nearly the same, above 18 per 100,000 people.
And according to some experts, the military may be undercounting the problem because of the way it calculates its suicide rate.
I swear, I had to look at the Calendar to make sure it wasn’t April 1.
“Why all the suicides in the military [scratching head]? And now that we are out of Iraq?
Well let’s see, look at what we have been doing and what we are doing now………..
1. Sending soldiers off to fight political wars with at best a fuzzy image of what the mission is: ie, what am I possibly giving my life for?
2. Sending soldiers off for multiple deployments
3. Sending soldiers off with operant training designed to cause soldiers to shoot to kill [before Vietnam, shoot to kill rates were less than 20%, now they are over 90%]
4. Putting soldiers in the field while taking powerful psychosomatic drugs to numb them to the horrors they are facing on multiple deployments…..all the while knowing that the delayed reaction might be very powerful
5. Putting returning soldiers through the VA PTSD program and then sending them out into communities with no continuing support.
6. Send returning vets out into an economy that can’t/won’t hire them
7. Having soldiers hear that DHS considers them a prime threat source for domestic terrorism [similar to the grand treatment we gave to returning Vietnam vets]
Gee, I wonder what could go wrong with a program like that?
[blockquote] today the rates are nearly the same, above 18 per 100,000 people[/blockquote]
So the military is filled with the demographic group which is at the highest risk of suicide, which is young men, yet has a rate which is below the rate of society as a whole, despite being surrounded by people trying to kill them, inadequate sleep, low pay, separation from loved ones, grueling physical demands, and limited outlets for self-expression. In fact, despite two simultaneous wars, you’re more likely to get killed in a traffic accident or visiting Chicago than in our military. The military seems admirably successful at fighting suicide.
So #2, at what level of suicide are you comfortable with? If it doesn’t exceed that traffic death rate in Chicago? That seems good to you?
I ask because you seem to miss the [not well stated in the article] point that a dramatic rise in active duty suicide rates [irregardless of what base figure that starts from] inevitably translates [and IS translating] to significantly higher rates in the veteran population for the reasons I explained in my first comment and for more reasons.
To be indifferent to those suicides represents the worst treatment a country can offer to its veterans who secure the country’s security: indifference.
That indifference that you referred to has been endemic for years, and especially since Vietnam, and employers in this country have been paying lip service to veterans’ problems ever since. I think we’re only seeing the tip of the iceberg here, and I should know; I’m a service-connected disabled veteran, and I see examples of this every time I go for a doctor’s appointment at the VA Medical Center in Palo Alto or the VA Clinic in San Jose. It’s not just older veterans that I’m seeing any more; the majority now are veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and yes, the situation is bad, and is likely to worsen over time. Our veterans’ organizations are working with the Veterans’ Administration to address these problems, but we desperately need more public involvement and support. The entire country needs to get involved.
Our country’s indifference is truly tragic because starting with the Vietnam War, we completely changed how we train our front line soldiers [Army, Marines, Seal, etc] for their front line assignments. We used [and use] psychological training to give them the instinct to fire and kill at close range when they saw an enemy combatant. During Vietnam and later, this has resulted in effective [ie, killing] firing rates of over 90%. In earlier wars, most soldiers did not fire to kill for reasons of conscience [firing rates less than 20%].
What this means is that many many more soldiers from Vietnam and later come back with the trauma of having killed. For many this results in PTSD and if not effectively treated, can lead to suicide. Add to this the use of psychotropic drugs to active duty front line soldiers to numb them to the horror of what they are experiencing [needed in a short handed military] with possible latent effects, this is why we are seeing what we are seeing.
Exactly, and this is what I’m told by my fellow disabled veterans. And in earlier wars, such as WW2, most soldiers, sailors, and Marines rarely saw the results of killing the enemy, and pilots and aircrew almost never even saw the enemy except as a fighter plane shot down in aerial combat. It was just a target, and nothing more. The closest I ever got to seeing the results of combat before my own service days was a high school teacher with shell shock who had been on the receiving end of a German artillery barrage during the Battle of the Bulge. He committed suicide.
One more thing: Troops coming home from Vietnam were often spit upon, were called fools, and worst of all, baby killers. I was on active duty in the Air Force then, although not “in-country,” but I saw firsthand what my fellow veterans were put through, and it galled and sickened me that our fellow Americans acted as they did. I happened to be in uniform and on a flight in which several soldiers returned from Vietnam landed at a Stateside airport, and when we proceeded to deplane, some demonstrators greeted us at the gate with shouts of “baby killers” and other epithets, and it was at that point that one of the soldiers decked one of them out of anger and frustration.
[blockquote] “During Vietnam and later, this has resulted in effective [ie, killing] firing rates of over 90%. In earlier wars, most soldiers did not fire to kill for reasons of conscience [firing rates less than 20%].” [/blockquote]
Capt Warren, what does this mean? Are you referring to SLA Marshall’s research about soldiers supposedly not firing at the enemy? That has been very difficult to verify, although I wouldn’t doubt there is some truth to it. But whatever the truth of his original research (note e.g. the comments by his one-time assistant David Hackworth about his research methods), I would be highly sceptical of claims that the US Army made any real change, particularly in Vietnam.
[blockquote] “What this means is that many many more soldiers from Vietnam and later come back with the trauma of having killed. For many this results in PTSD and if not effectively treated, can lead to suicide.” [/blockquote]
Believe it or not, Father Warren, soldiers killed in previous wars too. And whilst in most cases they didn’t see the actual the deaths they caused (even as far back as the American Civil War) they saw plenty of dead and wounded enemy, and they also saw plenty of their mates killed and wounded. Vietnam and recent wars are no worse than previous wars.
[blockquote] “We used [and use] psychological training to give them the instinct to fire and kill at close range when they saw an enemy combatant. During Vietnam and later, this has resulted in effective [ie, killing] firing rates of over 90%. In earlier wars, most soldiers did not fire to kill for reasons of conscience [firing rates less than 20%].” [/blockquote]
Sorry but this is all way off the mark. US soldiers also fired and killed at close range in previous wars. As did soldiers of other nations. Also, on what basis do you consider that the traumatic effects on your soldiers now are any worse than what they were in say WWII?
Michal A, I refer you to “On Killing”, by Lt. Col [ret] Dave Grosman, a far reaching piece of work and required reading at West Point, I believe, and by all USMC officers.
The operant [psychological] training used in Vietnam and to this day is dramatically different than earlier wars; hence the changed results in firing rates and PTSD rates in returning veterans.
To go off topic, this operant training has been in the news recently because the FBI and DHS has been reported to be using operant trainiing to prepare these and possibly other agencies to effectively engage US citizens should massive unrest take place.
I stand by what I wrote and believe Grosman’s work to provide fundemental insights into the significant issues we are dealing with returning veterans.
#7 described in first person what he saw done to returning Vietnam Vets. We never ever did that to other returning Vets [although we did deny returning Iraq vets public parades to acknowledge their service]. So I stand by the contention that Vietnam was a singular example of terrible treatment of those we sent off to fight our battles.
Capt Warren,
I wasn’t aware that Grosman came up with some of the ideas you have been pushing above. Most of his work is descriptive only.
By all means tell yourself that US forces are killing more effectively at the individual shooter level if that is what you want to believe.
I can’t say much more except that every generation tries to convince itself that war is worse for it than previous generations.
I agree that treating returning veterans as pariahs is a good way to exacerbate the psychological trauma experienced by EVERY generation of soldiers.
[i]Most of his work is descriptive only[/i]
That is a good, terse, and entirely inaccurate description of his work. But I am not a professional psychologist so maybe that is how the field of psychology would describe it too.
But West Point, the USMC, and many law enforcement agencies, and those of us involved with community support efforts for returning veterans of all wars find it to be a good, thorough, work which provides a series of models to help explain what we are seeing in those who return from our country’s wars.
And as I noted above, a growing number of people are concerned that training methods being used by the FBI, DHS, and other agencies similar to those “described” by Grosman are targeted at US citizens in the event of mass civil unrest.
If you have no use for it; well, that’s fine too.