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/...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.

Originally Posted by Happy Times

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]

Originally Posted by Happy Times

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:

[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]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

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).