If you don’t get wounded or killed, that is.
Just how ‘well’ were these soldiers before they left?
what the flying F8ck?
Tell that to my dad, a multiply decorated Vietnam veteran who woke up in cold sweats, screaming, due to post-war stress when I was a kid.
:e 
vil:
That’s not exactly news. Yes, there are legitimate cases of post tramatic stress syndrome but they are a lot rarer than the popular press would lead you to believe and I’ve long suspected that most of the real cases were people who were a bit shakey going in. For those who are mentally healthy it really is true that “anything that does not kill you makes you stronger.” Those who already have difficulty coping with life, even if that difficulty is well hidden, are more likely to be further damaged by stress.
I think that’s why we saw so much PTS after Viet Nam - that was the first US war which dragged on for years with little popular support so towards the end, especially, the military was taking in a lot of folks that wouldn’t make the cut under other circumstances. I think we’re likely to see much the same thing now in Iraq. When the mostly “normal” cross-section of society that enlisted during peacetime and early on when the war enjoyed popular support are gone the military will again have to lower recruiting standards - there is already talk of doing just that.
I think if those researchers studied Americans who have returned from Iraq so far they would get very similar results but that a study of Americans who return from Iraq a few years from now will yield markedly different results.
Ditto.
War is not good for anyone but the military contractors.
Isn’t there a saying out there that “War is hell”? Mebey the people who think war is good can go there, sit on a hot coal, and let us know if the saying has merit! 
I think it’s totally dependant on what the troops actually have to DO while they are in the military.
Someone who did face to face combat would have a totally different perspective than someone who, oh, say loaded and fired mortar rounds. A “first responder” position would be different than a couple of days later “mopping up”, or a several weeks later “getting the infrastructure back in order”.
My dad was in the South Pacific in WWII. He talked VERY little about his actual “combat” memories. He did talk about time on a hospital ship (he had both shrapnel wounds and reoccurring malaria) or leave times.
He would NEVER go swimming. I finally found out why when he was dying - and talking - he said he saw too many body parts and such in the water to ever be able to get into it again and enjoy it.
Missy
I’d have to agree. Someone who is playing a police role can hardly compare their war experiences with someone who has just gunned down a group of women and children deliberately under orders, or had to clean up a village after a napalm attack, or watched their entire platoon shredded by mortar-fire. Also, modern warfare is so much more clinical, and the training is so much more advanced since VN.
One of the big findings after WW II was that a lot of soldiers came out of a battle without firing a shot. They just ducked and prayed. So the military spent millions on learning how to psyche up the troops to actually kill something when sent overseas. I think you would get a different psychological profile between troops sent over to do crowd control versus the people who did guard duty in Abu Graib prison versus special warfare troops who have actually been in on the ground in Afghanistan or Iraq.
I wonder who funded the study, and what purposes they had for putting this kind of spin on the results.
djm
I’ve heard about that study too. . . but I had also heard that it had been debunked recently, and in fact, most WWII troops did as they were trained to do. But. . . I can’t back it up with a reference right now so deal 
It is hard to accept the contention of the article. I cannot imagine the personal hell that many are going through.
In a different drift, it’s a legitimate question to ask what the social effects will be in having a hundred thousand soldiers back in the U.S. (no, not all at once, I don’t need the lecture about how we’ll be there for years) who have experienced the absolute terror and the certitude from having the only two options of life and death available as well as the inevitable social comparisons they must be making about life in general in Iraq vs. US.
Our society, to my way of thinking, has a lot of diseased thinking. My father reduces it to “People can’t handle prosperity.” And I think he is right. When I look at all these shaved-head losers driving around with spinner rims and gang dress, I sometimes consider them a lost generation. Put a uniform on em and send em to Iraq and I would wager that, IF THEY SURVIVE, they would come home the better for the rest of their lives IN TERMS OF EXISTING NORMAL SOCIAL CONVENTIONS. No, I am NOT wishing this on anyone but I am asking about the relative value of their development in this current climate. There definitely seems to be an ongling lack of purpose and malaise about. And there also seems to be a universal corelation between valuing life and humanity when you have experienced inhumanity and violence in wartime.
The act of having the young go off to war affects everyone, from the immediate family out to the community, educational institutions, popular culture etc. And its ongoing, for years. Once again, I am NOT purposely advocating this as a SOLUTION but frankly, this is something that has happened over and over again in social history and bears examining.
And I am sure some detractors will immediately latch onto this and show that this is exactly what the evil Republicans want; keep the masses sedated blablabla.
Yes, this is controversial etc. etc. But I would ask you to ponder what the effect was on US society when the WW2 vets came home. Personally, I believe that the “boring 50s” may well have been the result of the “terrified 40s” for the actual combat vets. Maybe they came home and wanted peace and quiet so bad that they blanketed over existing social ills and the many other things that 50s detractors would remind us of. The 60s had this sense of awakening. Maybe it was that the generation was far enough removed from combat reality that it could start abstracting issues of nationalism, etc. But I have long-term doubts in the pragmatic value of the latter’s thinking.
Maybe that would happen again. Maybe at least 100,000 people would have experienced enough of a reality check about freedom, personal and social violence, etc. etc. to end up having a salubrious or at least anticipated effect on our social discourse, law and order, etc.
WHETHER THIS IS TRULY WHAT ANYBODY WANTS is beyond the ken of this post, so please don’t trash me on that front.
On the other hand, if we follow the Vietnam pattern, and the soldiers end up being scorned, we will just be in for more social turmoil and damaged lives. Which seems to be the way some want, so their anti-American prophecies are fulfilled.
weeks - very good points…
One thing “our” military has been terrible in - no matter if it was the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, WWII, Vietnam or now - is “support” of the troops once they are “home”. As I said, my dad had some lingering trauma (and reoccuring malaria the rest of his life…). I’m sure a lot of us know some "Nam vets that have slipped through the cracks to become addicts, homeless, or just non-functioning.
I’m not talking about the “baby-killer” comments, etc. although those are horrible and totally NOT called for. I’m talking about readjustment to civilian life for the rank and file troop. Especially those in life and death situations.
But, I also agree that having to serve in a lot of cases makes one a “better” person - or at least helps one define what they are and what they want to do with their lives. Besides my son, I have the privilage of knowing 9 others who will also be enlisting (ok, one is going to the Citadel, but was also accepted at the Air Force Academy) in the next few months. Each of these kids are at the very least honor students. Just had awards this morning - I was teasing one of the parent’s that they need to build a new room just to display the award certificates their son was awarded today! All of these kids have a vision of what they want to do - my son; aircraft mechanic, another wants to go into law enforcement.
I’m rambling…
Missy
“This study also reminds us that where there are > highly selected > forces with high morale…”(my bolding)
I wonder if “highly selected forces” are different than regular forces? These fellows (it isn’t just their berets) sort of remind me of the US Special Forces—I think called the Green Berets. I don’t know anything about the trauma incidence in the Special Forces, but I think people might be tested very rigorously before they can go into Special Forces. And Green Berets did get public recognition.
They are. You’ll never meet a more naturally smart person, both in terms of common sense and sheer brain power, than a Green Beret. I’ve had the privilege of knowing several.
What you are talking about is “discipline”. (I thought better of posting pics …) 
djm
Chang He, I’m sure you are right.
I just want to make sure I don’t appear to be putting down the regular troops----some people are just more psychologically suited for war, I suppose, and most of us would not be and wouldn’t care to be even though we would do whatever we could to try to carry out our duties.
Yeah, dj. Sadly, they aren’t getting it from anywhere else. The school system has been de-constructed; between diversity sensitivity and ongoing threats of litigation, schools have little power over the children they are expected to educate because their hierarchy of authority has been nearly obliterated. So it’s not coming from there. Between pleasure-seeking, kidulthood by parents, and broken homes, they might not be getting it there either.
Because a lack of self-control makes one a better consumer, albeit a bankrupt one, there are few social forces for it, except religion and hey…that’s out of style as well.
Rigorous athletic training seems to be the other option. My son just ended his five-year competitive gymnastic career. We paid a huge price in the family for it, financially and at many other levels. But the kid learned how to work really hard for ongoing goals and I know that he will do okay in life. I often reminded myself of that as I was driving back and forth to the practices and meets.
I was with you right up until here… “some”? who are you talking about? anti-American prophecies? What prophecies? By whom?
I’m not trying to start anything - I genuinely don’t understand what you’re getting at here.
Susan
Oh yea… war is soooo healthy. :roll:
=================================
11,000 US soldiers dead from DU poisoning
by Bob Nichols
Centre for Research on Globalisation
February 2005
Heads roll at Veterans Administration Mushrooming depleted
uranium (DU) scandal blamed
Considering the tons of depleted uranium used by the U.S., the Iraq war can truly be called a nuclear war.
Preventive Psychiatry E-Newsletter charged Monday that the reason Veterans Affairs Secretary Anthony Principi stepped down earlier this month was the growing scandal surrounding the use of uranium munitions in the Iraq War.
Writing in Preventive Psychiatry E-Newsletter No. 169, Arthur N. Bernklau, executive director of Veterans for Constitutional Law in New York, stated, “The real reason for Mr. Principi’s departure was really never given, however a special report published by eminent scientist Leuren Moret naming depleted uranium as the definitive cause of the ‘Gulf War Syndrome’ has fed a growing scandal about the continued use of uranium munitions by the US Military.”
Bernklau continued, “This malady (from uranium munitions), that thousands of our military have suffered and died from, has finally been identified as the cause of this sickness, eliminating the guessing. The terrible truth is now being revealed.”
He added, “Out of the 580,400 soldiers who served in GW1 (the first Gulf War), of them, 11,000 are now dead! By the year 2000, there were 325,000 on Permanent Medical Disability. This astounding number of ‘Disabled Vets’ means that a decade later, 56% of those soldiers who served have some form of permanent medical problems!” The disability rate for the wars of the last century was 5 percent; it was higher, 10 percent, in Viet Nam.
“The VA Secretary (Principi) was aware of this fact as far back as 2000,” wrote Bernklau. “He, and the Bush administra11,ooo US soldiers dead from DU.ems tion have been hiding these facts, but now, thanks to Moret’s report, (it) … is far too big to hide or to cover up!”
“Terry Jamison, Public Affairs Specialist, Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs, Department of Veterans Affairs, at the VA Central Office, recently reported that ‘Gulf Era Veterans’ now on medical disability, since 1991, number 518,739 Veterans,” said Berklau.
“The long-term effects have revealed that DU (uranium oxide) is a virtual death sentence,” stated Berklau. “Marion Fulk, a nuclear physical chemist, who retired from the Lawrence Livermore Nuclear Weapons Lab, and was also involved with the Manhattan Project, interprets the new and rapid malignancies in the soldiers (from the 2003 Iraq War) as ‘spectacular – and a matter of concern!’”
When asked if the main purpose of using DU was for “destroying things and killing people,” Fulk was more specific: “I would say it is the perfect weapon for killing lots of people!”
References
-
Depleted uranium: Dirty bombs, dirty missiles, dirty bullets: A death sentence here and abroad" by Leuren Moret, http://www.sfbayview.com/081804/Depleteduranium081804.shtml.
-
Veterans for Constitutional Law, 112 Jefferson Ave., Port Jefferson NY 11777, Arthur N. Bernklau, executive director, (516) 474-4261, fax 516-474-1968.
-
Preventive Psychiatry E-Newsletter. Email Gary Kohls, gkohls@cpinternet.com , with Subscribe" in the subject line.
That article is complete crap. “Gulf War Syndrome” has not been clearly defined, there is no way that every single soldier who went to GW1 was exposed to depleted uranium, and DU itself is only dangerous if the dust from its penetration of a target is inhaled. Otherwise, it is no more dangerous than any other weapon. It isn’t radioactive, at least not to the degree you might think from the name. For a real discussion of the hazards, check out this](http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/faq_17apr.htm%22%3Ethis) site. It is an official document, so I guess jGilder will assume it is lying, but for the rest of you, check it out. It is thoroughly referenced. Aslo check out this](http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/docs/b04151999_bt170-99.htm%22%3Ethis) one, which states:
RAND REVIEW INDICATES NO EVIDENCE OF HARMFUL HEALTH EFFECTS FROM DEPLETED URANIUM
The Department of Defense announced today the release of a RAND scientific literature review that indicates no evidence of harmful health effects directly linked to depleted uranium exposures at levels experienced by Gulf War veterans.
The report, “A Review of the Scientific Literature as it Pertains to Gulf War Illnesses: Volume 7 Depleted Uranium,” is the latest report commissioned by the office of the special assistant for Gulf War illnesses. The report responds to veterans’ concerns that depleted uranium might be the cause of some of their illnesses.
The report states that there are no peer reviewed published reports of detectable increases of cancer or other negative health effects from radiation exposure to inhaled or ingested natural uranium at levels far exceeding those likely in the Gulf. > This is mainly because the body is very effective at eliminating ingested and inhaled uranium and because the low radioactivity of natural or depleted uranium means that the mass of uranium needed for significant internal exposure is virtually impossible to obtain. Large variations in exposure to radioactivity from natural uranium in the normal environment have not been associated with negative health effects.
Exposure to uranium at high doses can cause kidney problems. However, no increase in kidney disease has been observed in relatively large occupational populations chronically exposed to natural uranium at concentrations above normal ambient levels.
Researchers at the Baltimore VA Medical Center are following the group of Gulf War Veterans with the greatest exposure to depleted uranium, veterans with embedded fragments. Although these individuals have an array of health problems, many of which are related to their combat injuries, researchers say “To date no manifestations of kidney disease attributable to the chemical toxicity of depleted uranium have been found; neither do these individuals appear to have manifestations attributable to radiation effects.”
RAND is a nonprofit institution with a long history of independent research. RAND had experts review the literature, including Dr. Naomi Harley, an authority on radiation physics, Dr. Ernest Foulkes, a heavy metal toxicologist, and Dr. Lee Hilborne, a pathologist. Their review encompassed literature relating to both radiation and heavy metal toxicity risks published or accepted for publication in peer-reviewed journals, books, government publications and conference proceedings.
This paper, as well as the RAND literature review on oil well fires and the Defense Department’s environmental exposure report on depleted uranium are posted on the GulfLINK web site, at http//> www.gulflink.osd.mil> .
That review they are talking about can be found here.</a](http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/docs/du/index.html">here.</a)>
There are many people who have only the darkest view of American culture as part of an indictment of capitalism in general. Because we live in a free society, people can actively be against the whole system and root for its failure.
Remember that Salon columnist Gary Kamiya actually expressed regret that more American lives were not lost in the initial attack on Iraq because it didn’t fulfill the detractors dark prophecies of the cost of Bush’ actions to help turn America against him. I was familiar with him as he started his career at the East Bay Express in Berkeley. He felt he was expressing a sentiment that represented a leftist view.
I realize that this is specifically focused on the war itself but when I ponder how willing they are to see harm come upon their heads of their countrymen, I include them in my calculations.
‘I have a confession,’’ wrote Salon Executive Editor Gary Kamiya on April 10. ‘‘I have at times, as the war has unfolded, secretly wished for things to go wrong. Wished for the Iraqis to be more nationalistic, to resist longer. Wished for the Arab world to rise up in rage. Wished for all the things we feared would happen. I’m not alone: A number of serious, intelligent, morally sensitive people who oppose the war have told me they have identical feelings.’’
Jonathan Schell, writing in the Sept. 22 issue of the Nation: “[Democratic Senator Joe] Biden says we must win the war. This is precisely wrong. The United States must learn to lose this war a harder task, in many ways, than winning, for it requires admitting mistakes and relinquishing attractive fantasies. This is the true moral mission of our time.”
There really are people like that around, Susan. That’s all.
Oh of course, everyone knows how honest the US government is – they keep proving it over and over.
