The stories about soldiers suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) have been coming for a while now. That one is from June 2004. Its worrisome "1 in 8" soldiers suffering has been upgraded to this month's one in three.
The News Blog is collecting the recent rash of sad stories this month about combat stress and post-traumatic stress disorder in American and coalition troops.
If I have any readers left, every last one of you must read the following books. When you’ve read them, pass your copies to the next person.
Achilles in Vietnam: Combat Trauma and the Undoing of Character and
Odysseus in America: Combat Trauma and the Trials of Homecoming by Jonathan Shay, VA psychiatrist.
On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society by Dave Grossman, psychologist and former Army Ranger.
It isn’t fear of death or mutilation that causes combat stress, exhaustion, and PTSD. It is the necessity of killing. Wrap your head around that: ask a soldier to kill and he or she will suffer. Yes, there are ways to mitigate the suffering and the US military does some of what is needed. But, given what we’re hearing right now, clearly not enough, and when the pressure on manpower is this acute, corners are being cut.
When discussing the number of deaths in the Iraq War earlier, I used Iraq Body Count's numbers because they are inarguable. It should, however, be understood that IBC's numbers will always be lower than the actual number of people killed in the conflict.
Here is another accounting.
The civil war has been ongoing for some time now. I believe I've been told that there are political reasons for failing to call a spade a spade, but really.
War: at least 1000 battle-related deaths per year.
Iraq Body Count reports a minimum of 33,000 civilians killed over the past three years due to the military intervention (the majority of those have not been killed by the US military). IBC is clear that the motivation of the killers can be difficult to determine, but when 10,000 people in the last year were killed by non-US fighters, it is very clear to me that "civil war" is the only word that covers the carnage.
You are Iran.
You have been identified by the current US Administration as “evil”. You’ve’ heard a lot of saber rattling rhetoric over the years from this Administration and its intellectuals. You’re hearing an escalation of that rhetoric right now in the run up to an American election.
The American election might determine if the current US Administration can pursue its hostility toward you or if it will be forced to defend itself at home. Would the current US Administration try to start a war with you as a way of playing the nationalism card and winning the elections?
You’ve watched how the propaganda against Iraq was developed. You see similar techniques and storylines being developed against you.
You have a pretty good sense of the capabilities of the US military having watched them up close for the past three years. You are pretty sure that even weakened they can demolish a huge amount of your army. You aren’t positive you can win on the battlefield, but you know you can win any aftermath. You also know that the generals in the US know all that.
Would they use nuclear weapons? Would they simply overwhelm you with their cruise missiles and bombers, destroy your armor and artillery, target a few scientific sites with bunker busters or special ops, and then declare victory? The former would surely be insane, but you can’t afford the latter either. They aren’t going to invade in any strength, but they are going to bomb the shit of you.
How do you prevent that war from happening?
. . .
I don't know about you, but if I was Iran I think I'd try to beat the Bush Administration before it attacked me. In order to do that, I'd need to have an impact on the elections. The feedback mechanism to the American electorate is the US military in Iraq. If I want to beat the Bush Administration, I have to beat the US military in a way which keeps them from counterattacking.
I'd have to be careful. I wouldn't want to beat the US military too soon. If I beat it by the summer, the fall would be time enough for an Administration propaganda counterattack, whipping up the electorate at the defeat and inflamming it with the need for a victory at whatever cost. I think I'd be in trouble then.
Too late would be, well, too late. I'd have to time it so that the defeat came at the precise moment that would do the most electoral damage. Do I have enough control to time it right? Do I have enough knowledge to time it right?
How would I defeat the US military? I'd set the stage for a general uprising. I'd make sure there was a rising overall violence, with some dramatic moments providing triggers for spikes. I'd also promise stability, milk, and honey once the US is gone.
. . .
There is no such thing as random violence in a war. Targets of violence may be chosen opportunistically and ignorant young men may be encouraged to cause trouble, but the violence serves a purpose. There are people planning the violence in Iraq.
All the factions in Iraq have been waging a war of opportunity against each other for at least the past two years. Poke your head up too high and the US is likely to shoot it off, but pick your time and place and you can get away with murder. The level of violence in Iraq is extraordinary, averaging at a minimum 1000 civilians killed/month in war related violence.
They've been beating the hell out of each other below our radar. They are desperate to know how well the other guys fight because they want to be prepared when the US does eventually leave.