The Damaged Warriors

C

Cancel7

Banned
This is a really bad story. I just finished reading it my morning paper. The really horrible stuff is peppered throughout it, even at the very end of it.

And then, after I take in all of this, I am always left with; and they send these guys back to Iraq. Guys just like this are there now. What are they doing there? And it's just so bad.

A Focus on Violence by Returning G.I.’s
By LIZETTE ALVAREZ and DAN FROSCH
FORT CARSON, Colo. — For the past several years, as this Army installation in the foothills of the Rocky Mountains became a busy way station for soldiers cycling in and out of Iraq, the number of servicemen implicated in violent crimes has raised alarm.

Nine current or former members of Fort Carson’s Fourth Brigade Combat Team have killed someone or were charged with killings in the last three years after returning from Iraq. Five of the slayings took place last year alone. In addition, charges of domestic violence, rape and sexual assault have risen sharply.

Prodded by Senator Ken Salazar, Democrat of Colorado, the base commander began an investigation of the soldiers accused of homicide. An Army task force is reviewing their recruitment, medical and service records, as well as their personal histories, to determine if the military could have done something to prevent the violence. The inquiry was recently expanded to include other serious violent crimes.

Now the secretary of the Army, Pete Geren, says he is considering conducting an Army-wide review of all soldiers “involved in violent crimes since returning” from Iraq and Afghanistan, according to a letter sent to Mr. Salazar in December. Mr. Geren wrote that the Fort Carson task force had yet to find a specific factor underlying the killings, but that the inquiry was continuing.

Focusing attention on soldiers charged with killings is a shift for the military, which since the start of the war in Iraq has largely deflected any suggestion that combat could be a factor in violent behavior among some returning service members.

Maj. Gen. Mark Graham, the Fort Carson commander, said, “If they had a good manner of performance before they deployed, then they get back and they get into trouble, instead of saying we will discipline you for trouble, the leadership has to say, Why did that occur, what happened, what is causing this difference in behavior?”

General Graham, whose oldest son, Jeff, was killed by a roadside bomb in Iraq a year after another son, Kevin, committed suicide, has made mental health a focus since taking command of Fort Carson in 2007. “I feel like I have to speak out for the Kevins of the world,” he said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/02/us/02veterans.html?_r=1&hp=&pagewanted=print
 
I think war does something to a soldier. I also think the government chooses to ignore it. The question is was the man violent before he was sent to war, or is it a symptom of a psychological problem stemming from his service.


There is a fine line between a warrior and a violent psychopath. Unfortunately, the military is forced to take whoever they can so they can fill the ranks. More than a few nutcases slip thru the screenings.
 
I work with "damaged" Iraq vets. Yes more attention and help needs to be applied.
I was a Damoged Nam vet....The battle does not end for many when they leave the combat area.
 
Perhaps it's partly the rage of fighting for your country only to come home and find that you nations leadership will do nothing to help you save your civilian job from being outsourced.
 
Iraq being in control of our troops cannot help the situation much. Form a troops point of view. It appears we are outsourcing the control of our troops in Iraq.
 
uscitizen said:
I work with "damaged" Iraq vets. Yes more attention and help needs to be applied.
I was a Damoged Nam vet....The battle does not end for many when they leave the combat area.
Click to expand...

Well, I think that what America has done, and I fully blame the American people for this, by sending these guys back for three and four tours, when we knew full well from Vietnam, that ONE tour could fuck you up for life, is a crime. And I believe that the American people should have to answer for this.

No one is innocent in this. No one. Of course, I personally put a larger share of blame on the war supporters, but the Americans who just don't care, or just dont' say anything, are guilty too. We all are. My tax dollars are being used for this. But I keep paying taxes.
 
Darla said:
Well, I think that what America has done, and I fully blame the American people for this, by sending these guys back for three and four tours, when we knew full well from Vietnam, that ONE tour could fuck you up for life, is a crime. And I believe that the American people should have to answer for this.

No one is innocent in this. No one. Of course, I personally put a larger share of blame on the war supporters, but the Americans who just don't care, or just dont' say anything, are guilty too. We all are. My tax dollars are being used for this. But I keep paying taxes.
Click to expand...

You have a point. I see all these "Support the Troops? stickers and ribbons on cars. And I think to myself "If you support them then get them the hell out of there". The repeat tours is tough on the troops.
 
Darla said:
Well, I think that what America has done, and I fully blame the American people for this, by sending these guys back for three and four tours, when we knew full well from Vietnam, that ONE tour could fuck you up for life, is a crime. And I believe that the American people should have to answer for this.

No one is innocent in this. No one. Of course, I personally put a larger share of blame on the war supporters, but the Americans who just don't care, or just dont' say anything, are guilty too. We all are. My tax dollars are being used for this. But I keep paying taxes.
Click to expand...

The american people in general are not to blame. Its the war machine and it's elitists in government and big business who are to blame. The people were lied to, remember?
 
AssHatZombie said:
The american people in general are not to blame. Its the war machine and it's elitists in government and big business who are to blame. The people were lied to, remember?
Click to expand...

Yes, we were lied to. We remember.

But once we found out we were lied to and that we had no business in Iraq, we did what??
 
AssHatZombie said:
The american people in general are not to blame. Its the war machine and it's elitists in government and big business who are to blame. The people were lied to, remember?
Click to expand...

right just like you/us buying Chinese stuff bears no responsibility to offshoring of our industries?

some of us were smart enough to spot the lies even before the invasion.
 
I had to find the passage, but George Carlin (blessed be his name) did a piece about our use of words and the way we squeeze the humanity out of our language. He also made a damn good point about the soliders who came home.


"There's a condition in combat. Most people know about it. It's when a fighting person's nervous system has been stressed to it's absolute peak and maximum. Can't take anymore input. The nervous system has either (click) snapped or is about to snap.

In the first world war, that condition was called shell shock. Simple, honest, direct language. Two syllables, shell shock. Almost sounds like the guns themselves. That was seventy years ago.

Then a whole generation went by and the second world war came along and very same combat condition was called battle fatigue. Four syllables now. Takes a little longer to say. Doesn't seem to hurt as much. Fatigue is a nicer word than shock. Shell shock! Battle fatigue.

Then we had the war in Korea, 1950. Madison avenue was riding high by that time, and the very same combat condition was called operational exhaustion. Hey, were up to eight syllables now! And the humanity has been squeezed completely out of the phrase. It's totally sterile now. Operational exhaustion. Sounds like something that might happen to your car.

Then of course, came the war in Viet Nam, which has only been over for about sixteen or seventeen years, and thanks to the lies and deceits surrounding that war, I guess it's no surprise that the very same condition was called post-traumatic stress disorder. Still eight syllables, but we've added a hyphen! And the pain is completely buried under jargon. Post-traumatic stress disorder. I'll bet you if we'd of still been calling it shell shock, some of those Viet Nam veterans might have gotten the attention they needed at the time. I'll betcha. I'll betcha."




Maybe we can go back to calling it "shell shock" and get this latest generation of veterans the help they need. I have never understood why we can spend billions on th ewar machines, but we can't spend a little bit to help our service people handle what they did.
 
Last edited:
most of these kids join for lack of opportunity at home.
CUT THE MILITARY BUDGET 70%
Give them high paying green collar jobs with the difference.
 
I saw a great bumpersticker once that said something like "I'm even against the next war."

That about sums it up for me. There hasn't been a war in my lifetime that I've supported; I was one of 7% that was against Gulf I, even. I have yet to see a situation where "war" represents the best answer, and the one w/ the least negative impact. Violence begets violence, in a big way, and anytime you commit young people to war, you're opening up a Pandora's box for years to come.

I hated the careless, practically giddy attitude that this admin went to war with, starting with Bush's 9/11 declaration that "I am a war President!" Bush said he would never commit forces without a clear exit strategy, but they didn't even have a plan for post-Saddam Iraq; it was all about getting the troops in there. They didn't treat our military like it was made up of actual human beings; they were just a means to an end, ill-defined as that was. "Support the troops" became such an empty, cynical phrase.

I still see them as war criminals. It makes me sick when I hear people still talk about the idea that Bush's legacy will be a positive one if the Middle East becomes more democratic. There is no outcome that will come within a million miles of atoning for the reckless way we went to war.
 
Onceler said:
I saw a great bumpersticker once that said something like "I'm even against the next war."

That about sums it up for me. There hasn't been a war in my lifetime that I've supported; I was one of 7% that was against Gulf I, even. I have yet to see a situation where "war" represents the best answer, and the one w/ the least negative impact. Violence begets violence, in a big way, and anytime you commit young people to war, you're opening up a Pandora's box for years to come.

I hated the careless, practically giddy attitude that this admin went to war with, starting with Bush's 9/11 declaration that "I am a war President!" Bush said he would never commit forces without a clear exit strategy, but they didn't even have a plan for post-Saddam Iraq; it was all about getting the troops in there. They didn't treat our military like it was made up of actual human beings; they were just a means to an end, ill-defined as that was. "Support the troops" became such an empty, cynical phrase.

I still see them as war criminals. It makes me sick when I hear people still talk about the idea that Bush's legacy will be a positive one if the Middle East becomes more democratic. There is no outcome that will come within a million miles of atoning for the reckless way we went to war.
Click to expand...



Iraq and Afganistan are now more democratic.
No waiting required.
 
Yeah. Like how they call totalitarianism the "The Theory of Hegemonic Stability". Makes it sound smart and sophisticated don't it?
 
Onceler said:
I saw a great bumpersticker once that said something like "I'm even against the next war."

That about sums it up for me. There hasn't been a war in my lifetime that I've supported; I was one of 7% that was against Gulf I, even. I have yet to see a situation where "war" represents the best answer, and the one w/ the least negative impact. Violence begets violence, in a big way, and anytime you commit young people to war, you're opening up a Pandora's box for years to come.

I hated the careless, practically giddy attitude that this admin went to war with, starting with Bush's 9/11 declaration that "I am a war President!" Bush said he would never commit forces without a clear exit strategy, but they didn't even have a plan for post-Saddam Iraq; it was all about getting the troops in there. They didn't treat our military like it was made up of actual human beings; they were just a means to an end, ill-defined as that was. "Support the troops" became such an empty, cynical phrase.

I still see them as war criminals. It makes me sick when I hear people still talk about the idea that Bush's legacy will be a positive one if the Middle East becomes more democratic. There is no outcome that will come within a million miles of atoning for the reckless way we went to war.
Click to expand...

No, there really isn't.
 
The problem is largely from the stories and history talking about the "glory" of war. But those were written by people who didn't have to wade thru mud, blood, and shit to watch their friends die. There is no glory in picking up body parts or having to notify the families.

No matter what any administration says, the front line soldiers are expendable. They see it as casualties.

I don't understand how they can send young men & women to die and not think about the families. We just finished the christmas holidays. How many families spent time missing a loved one that was killed? How many families all over the world have spent years grieving for the loss of loved ones?



Onceler, you are absolutely correct. There has not been a war in our lifetime (and I'm an old fart) that was fought for a good reason.
 
Solitary said:
The problem is largely from the stories and history talking about the "glory" of war. But those were written by people who didn't have to wade thru mud, blood, and shit to watch their friends die. There is no glory in picking up body parts or having to notify the families.

No matter what any administration says, the front line soldiers are expendable. They see it as casualties.

I don't understand how they can send young men & women to die and not think about the families. We just finished the christmas holidays. How many families spent time missing a loved one that was killed? How many families all over the world have spent years grieving for the loss of loved ones?



Onceler, you are absolutely correct. There has not been a war in our lifetime (and I'm an old fart) that was fought for a good reason.
Click to expand...


You don't understand? our world is run by the most violent psychopaths on it. And they spin massive lies to whitewash what they do. They call their totalitarianism, the unavoidable, inevitable way of things, and they hire intellectuals to whitewash it all with nice sounding words. And half the time, those idiots believe it themselves. People who think for themselves are actually quite rare.
 
Solitary said:
I had to find the passage, but George Carlin (blessed be his name) did a piece about our use of words and the way we squeeze the humanity out of our language. He also made a damn good point about the soliders who came home.


"There's a condition in combat. Most people know about it. It's when a fighting person's nervous system has been stressed to it's absolute peak and maximum. Can't take anymore input. The nervous system has either (click) snapped or is about to snap.

In the first world war, that condition was called shell shock. Simple, honest, direct language. Two syllables, shell shock. Almost sounds like the guns themselves. That was seventy years ago.

Then a whole generation went by and the second world war came along and very same combat condition was called battle fatigue. Four syllables now. Takes a little longer to say. Doesn't seem to hurt as much. Fatigue is a nicer word than shock. Shell shock! Battle fatigue.

Then we had the war in Korea, 1950. Madison avenue was riding high by that time, and the very same combat condition was called operational exhaustion. Hey, were up to eight syllables now! And the humanity has been squeezed completely out of the phrase. It's totally sterile now. Operational exhaustion. Sounds like something that might happen to your car.

Then of course, came the war in Viet Nam, which has only been over for about sixteen or seventeen years, and thanks to the lies and deceits surrounding that war, I guess it's no surprise that the very same condition was called post-traumatic stress disorder. Still eight syllables, but we've added a hyphen! And the pain is completely buried under jargon. Post-traumatic stress disorder. I'll bet you if we'd of still been calling it shell shock, some of those Viet Nam veterans might have gotten the attention they needed at the time. I'll betcha. I'll betcha."




Maybe we can go back to calling it "shell shock" and get this latest generation of veterans the help they need. I have never understood why we can spend billions on th ewar machines, but we can't spend a little bit to help our service people handle what they did.
Click to expand...





Then they can call it things like PTSD and make it sound like just ...well....some undeterminable thing that no one knows why it happens.

Maybe they should call it "Americans Responsibility" for a damned change. Every citizen should pay a special tax that they have to put a signature under and pay separately to provide the BEST Possible, State of the Art medical (including all mental) , College and job training and family counciling for life for our people who served.


I want an "I'm even against the next war" bumper sticker!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top