The forgotten casualties of war

[Skybird]

Since years I use to say that the Allied losses in killed and wounded in Afghanistan and Iraq must be rated as being several times as high as the official statistics display.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,druck-685442,00.html


About one in every five US soldiers who returns home after a tour of duty in Iraq or Afghanistan later finds him- or herself battling traumatic neuroses. An estimated 300,000 US war veterans suffer from PTSD, though many don't seek medical help for fear that they will be classified as being mentally ill. According to the findings of a survey commissioned by the Rand Corporation, an American think tank, only half of those who can eventually overcome their reticence and seek medical help receive even the "barely adequate" treatment they require.
In 2009, more than twice as many US servicemen and women committed suicide than were killed in combat in Iraq (334 and 149, respectively). A year earlier, military doctors found that, each month, roughly 1,000 veterans were trying to take their own life. More than 100 veterans of the fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan have completely snapped after returning home and ended up killing others. A third of their victims were girlfriends, wives or other family members.


Tragic. Though not on that numerical scale, many German soldiers return from Afghanistan heavily traumatised, too. It is a universal epidemic, not specific for Americans in Iraq.

Things like this they also should tell the teens that they try to fascinate for the military when sending recruiters to highschools. It is not any different from making a visitor in a bar drunk, lurking him into a dark sidestreet, knock him out, pack him onto a ship and then clear for the open sea. People wanting to join the military by heart, will find the according bureaus all by themselves. Actively hunting down unexperienced, unknowing teenagers, is a moral crime. I compare it to the abuse of juvenile enthusiasm and sense for adventure by the HJ, who tried to raise interest and loyalty for the soldier'S life by holding scout meetings, adventure game sin the forest and sit-ins by the campfire. Not different to putting young boys on a tank and letting them "shoot" with a heavy machine gun and then sending them home with wide open eyes, telling their Mum: "When I'm grown up I want to be a soldier!"

[capthelm]

its bull... these wars.

[Happy Times]

They shoud get tests to profile these in recruiting phase.

Should also note that many people dont get any traumas at all.
Closest that comes to mind for me is my grandfather and he was in some really stressing places.

He was in middle of some the biggest artillery barrages of WW2, witnessed horribly mutilated bodies as a result.

Was himself wounded twice.

Was once surrounded in an outpost with his squad, had to run to get help trough an open field, with the enemy firing at him all the way.

He has never had nightmares, only thing you can read from his face is a big smile.

He isnt religious at all, said he doesnt think theres nothing after this life.

But he is very patriotic and was raised in an enviroment that encouraged military skills and sacrifice for the fatherland.

You can have one or the other, but you cant have both Skybird.

But since the Western nations are the spit cup of the rest of the world, i hope we do continue encourage our young men and women to serve their country in the military.

[OneToughHerring]

But since the Western nations are the spit cup of the rest of the world, .

Yes exactly, the western nations are the "spit cup of the rest of the world". Never mind the fact that Europe and European colonial powers have ruled over the rest of the world for, well, the last five hundred years. Even before that.

If that equals being the "spit cup of the rest of the world" then I don't know exactly how your mind functions.

And as far as Finnish soldiers of WW 2 not having PTSD, bull. They had PTSD, it just wasn't diagnosed back then. Many of them committed suicide or some serious crimes etc. There should have been treatment for them but there wasn't anything. Hopefully that won't be the case for the soldiers of the modern wars.

[Happy Times]

Yes exactly, the western nations are the "spit cup of the rest of the world". Never mind the fact that Europe and European colonial powers have ruled over the rest of the world for, well, the last five hundred years. Even before that.

If that equals being the "spit cup of the rest of the world" then I don't know exactly how your mind functions.

It functions like your argument, constant and never ending blame game.

There is nothing bad in this world that isnt contributed to Europeans or their former colonies overseas. Be it poverty, war or global warming, i bet all would be good if we just killed ourself from this planet.

And as far as Finnish soldiers of WW 2 not having PTSD, bull. They had PTSD, it just wasn't diagnosed back then. Many of them committed suicide or some serious crimes etc. There should have been treatment for them but there wasn't anything. Hopefully that won't be the case for the soldiers of the modern wars.

I didnt even claim that, i said many people dont get specific traumas from war. But as you yourself admit, wars are going to be fought in the future also, we have to learn from past experiences.

[CaptainHaplo]

Happy times - don't even try to argue with a stop sign.....

The post that Skybird made stated "1 in every 5" - meaning 20% of the soldiers suffer PTSD. You stated "Many" don't suffer from this - and with 80% suffering no mental ill effects, your absolutely correct. However, the person your arguing with cannot - either through lack of ability or lack of willingness, accept that 80% means "Many".

So seriously, do yourself a favor and don't feed the troll....

[Skybird]

They shoud get tests to profile these in recruiting phase.

You cannot say in advance what "grade" somebody's vulnerability to this is, and you also cannot tell the future event(s) he is going to face. The reason why PTSD has been talked down and ignored in the military so long is that it violates man's self-understanding as a strong, tough soldier who is untouchable in the face of deazh to admit that EVERYBODY could fall victim to this girly extravaganza called PTSD.

Should also note that many people dont get any traumas at all.
You are wrong. Up to one quarter, maybe even more, are effected, science shows. It'S sjust that it can come with a time delay and in a form that you as an outside observer of the person would not recognise it.


Closest that comes to mind for me is my grandfather and he was in some really stressing places.

He was in middle of some the biggest artillery barrages of WW2, witnessed horribly mutilated bodies as a result.

Was himself wounded twice.

Was once surrounded in an outpost with his squad, had to run to get help trough an open field, with the enemy firing at him all the way.

He has never had nightmares, only thing you can read from his face is a big smile.

That does not prove anything. My father's father was radio carrier in Russia, he came back with one leg, one eye and one lunge, and pains that he almost lost his mind. In later decades, he was bitter about his fate, but not suffering traumatisation. The father of my mother was tank commander and got six tanks shot into flames below his back, all crews dying since they could not escape. He dreamed and slept badly until the end of his life, suffered from attacks of uncontrollable shaking, and broke into tears when seeing christmas trees.

You have to take into account that systemtic study of the phenomenbeon of PTSD did not start earlier than Vietnam. The Germans did something like that in WWII, but could help little about it. But in principle stress did not start to become a stronger research program before Vietnam and the phenomenon of the socalled "Todeshexen", (deatch witches), as it is called in German. In WWII, at least the movie about Patton showed him to be completely ignorrant of the phenomenen and not only laughing in that patient's face, but beating him and cursing him (for which he later had to apologoze in front of his division).


But since the Western nations are the spit cup of the rest of the world, i hope we do continue encourage our young men and women to serve their country in the military.

I do not misrespect people joining the military, I even was close to chose that path myself, once. But I hate to manipulate the young and innocent who cannot know what they are in for, to lurk them into the war business. I say let the men find out themselves whether or not they have a warrior's spirit, and if they think they have, some will find their way into the military all by themselves, while others express it in another way and form (like I decided in case of myself). But manipulative, brainwashing recruiting makes me aggressive and reaching the ends of my tolerance.

I once again recommend the old German movie "Die Brücke", the old black-white film, not the terrible new junk movie. There you can see young boys playing adventure and being used to war being far away but exciting stuff, since they cannot know it better. They kill americans, Americans kill them, and for the most they are innocent nevertheless.

Impressive movie, one of the best war movies I know. Unofficial trailer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XyF6Wx2Z2h0&feature=related

[CaptainHaplo]

You are wrong. Up to one quarter, maybe even more, are effected, science shows. It'S sjust that it can come with a time delay and in a form that you as an outside observer of the person would not recognise it.

Uhm... Skybird - exactly what do you define as "Many"? If 25% of a group suffer an affliction - and thus 75% DON'T get it - why is the term "Many" - ie that 75% (an overwhelming MAJORITY remember) not accurate?

Could it be said that "Many" do suffer? Yes - but it is also - by your own statement - accurate to say that the MAJORITY does not... Therefore if 25% can be "Many" - then 3x that number still qualifies as "many"....

Just sayin...

[Skybird]

Uhm... Skybird - exactly what do you define as "Many"? If 25% of a group suffer an affliction - and thus 75% DON'T get it - why is the term "Many" - ie that 75% (an overwhelming MAJORITY remember) not accurate?

Could it be said that "Many" do suffer? Yes - but it is also - by your own statement - accurate to say that the MAJORITY does not... Therefore if 25% can be "Many" - then 3x that number still qualifies as "many"....

Just sayin...

You have to add those 25% to the casualty statistics, as wounded or (delayed) killed. And then you are in the high tens if not low hundreds of tousands for Iraq alone. ;) Reads a bit different than those numbers they officially publish, does it?! But traumatisation is a serious wound recei9ved, like the loss of a limb, or a shot wound.

I know that US veteran's organisations count with the latter numbers. And of the Germans in Afghanistan, again around one quarter suffers PTSD. It is an issue talked down by the officials as best as they can, becasue it would immediately chnage public percpetion of the war(s) if the real number of casualties would be recognised officially.

And some of these casualties later turn into ticking mines, hidden at home, endangering their own people at home that have turned into enemies for them.

I dealt with these things a bit, in the past, although my immediate experiences was with traumatisation not caused by combat actions, but due to torture (Balkan wars).

[CaptainHaplo]

Skybird - I totally understand what your getting at. Lets look at current numbers just with the US.

As of 3/26/2010 at 10 AM EDT - combining the numbers in both Iraq and Afghanistan, we see the following:

Killed (13 of which were DoD civilians): 5408
Wounded (Returned to Duty): 21,096
Wounded (not Returned to Duty): 16,960

This gives a total physically wounded or killed as: 43,464

Source: http://www.defense.gov/NEWS/casualty.pdf

Now - how many have served in the operational areas we are discussing?
"As of Jan. 31, 2005, the exact figure was 1,048,884" according to Salon.com (from pentagon sources they requested). Source:
http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2005/04/12/troops_numbers/index.html

Now that number is over 5 years old - so its fair to just double it given the various "surge" actions - and for ease of use lets just round the number down to an even 2 Million. That number is likely way too low, but it will suffice.

Now - before anyone starts salivating at the idea of claiming 500,000 "mental casualties", how many of that 2 Million number are from multiple deployments, as well as how many never see combat operations? It is not just line soldiers that are deployed - is it the supply soldiers that are there as well. Still - lets use your 25% of the original 2 Million.

That would mean your claiming a total of 543,464 casualties in some form - either mental or physical.

Now that is a tragic number - you will get no arguement out of me on that. However, that still amounts to a 27.17% total casualty rate. *Yes for those who keep score - that is a 2.17% casualty rate as it is (and always has been) calculated.

Now - my issue with you Skybird is that Happy Times said "MANY" soldiers do not suffer from PTSD or other mental problems related to war. You said that he was wrong. So how is it that 72.83% - or using the numbers above - 1,456,536 soldiers don't meet the standard of "many"?

My Dad went through 3 tours in Vietnam, 1 or 2 in Korea (never been able to pin that down) and enlisted in the Navy during WW2. He woke screaming too many times, and the experiences he shared with me in his later years (after my own combat experiences) were such that I understand both sides of this coin all too well. It was something that I worried would affect me the same way. Thankfully, that has not been the case. Men I have called friends have cried like children though, and I know the horrors that disturb their rest. I am not saying that PTSD isn't real, or trying to minimize it. I will say I think your 25% estimate is way too high, given my own knowledge. I would say closer to 10% - of those that see combat. It also has alot to do with the individual circumstances of each experience, as well as the individual in question.

I digress badly, as my point was that I while I know that this is one of many issues close to alot of people, for a number of reasons - you have to be accurate when you tell someone they are wrong. In this case, Happy Times was correct when he said that many do not suffer aftereffects. Its an emotional issue, and thus its important we always be factual when we can.

[Happy Times]

25% sounds a big number when you start to think about it.:hmmm:

What about all the policemen, firemen, paramedics and doctors that have to deal with death and danger to their own life during their careers?
Many times involving small children as victims, something that i personally find moving.

My personal experiences from something possibly traumatising are being shot above my head and pointed in the face with a gun and nearly escaping from being crushed under a truck.
Ive never had any stressing toughts on neither incident.

I read once that there are strong indicators of genetic and childhood factors that mainly contribute to getting a stress disorder.

If so i wouldnt rule out the possibility to create tests for screening these beforehand.

[Skybird]

Stress disorders developing in "normal" life conditions, tolerance towards stress in the office, in partnership, etc, are one thing. And yes, character's individual vulnerability level for stress is being influenced by the individual's past.

War, natural disaster, autobahn and train crashes, torture, genocide - that are some completely different things. Forget that amateur psychology statement of screening people for finding out who starts crying when. You can eventually train that vulnerability, like you also can train to withstand higher physical pain levels. But you cannot say in advance how somebody will react if he arrives at the scene of a plane crash and a hundred bodies lay shreddered on the ground. This silent whimp, as you have seen him, may show a strength you would not have expected, never, and emerges afterwards stronger than before. That monument of a man who always seemed to be in control and had natural authority, may break down afterwards. You cannot screen that in advance.

Because it is not just coping strategies with stress at the office.

Only one thing is certain. Everybody has his breaking point. EVERYBODY. For some it comes earlier, for some later.

The 25% sticks in my mind. It depends on what you read where. Some count with 20%, others with 30% and more. Numbers also are not reliable, since you miss all those cases who leave the military, develope a syndrome, but never see a doctor, or the military doctor. They hide, and fall silent. then there is the number of PTSD patients who get misdiagnosed with something else, and get treated wrong over years, at their own cost although the defence ministry would be responsible if it is a consequence of their service in the military/war. So, 25% is not far fetched at all. And that means what Haplo has concluded correctly, and what I said earlier, years ago, too: the Iraq war's casualties in killed and wounded must be counted in hundreds of thousands on American side. Do not trust the official numbers on PTSD from the defence ministry, they have no interest at all to let the public have a realistic impression of the size of the problem. It not only would cost reputation, but also much, much money. The press has shown many cases over the past years where veterans suffering from PTSD got combat-related PTSD talked out of their diagnosis, so that the Pentagon did not need to accept social responsibility and spend money on these people.