Topic awaiting preservation: Soldier mental illness hits Vietnam levels (Iraq) (Page 1 of 1)

Many returning troops suffer combat-related afflictions

quote:

---

It also paints the first broad statistical picture of the battlefield horrors encountered by the American combatants on the front lines in Iraq. For instance, one in four U.S. Marines surveyed reported killing Iraqi civilians. About one in five Army members surveyed reported engaging in hand-to-hand combat. More than 85 percent of those in Marine or Army combat units said they knew someone who had been injured or killed. More than half said they had handled corpses or human remains. The figures were based on soldiers' responses; the military does not have statistics available to confirm them.

---

I believe that pretty much sums things up. We have not been fully informed on what has been going on in Iraq, I fear. At least, I wasn't fully aware, that 1 in 4 Marines were killing civilians. I wasn't aware that post tramautic stress levels were reaching Vietnam proportions (please remeber that we have professional troops in Iraq, not conscripted civilians). And that 1 in 5 Army members are involved in hand-to-hand combat...Tom, tell the people what that is about.

It is high time to leave.

WebShaman | Asylum D & D | D & D Min Page

DAMN didnt realise it had got that bad.....

I will leave my response to this for the formal debate, as my angle if it is ok'd will be coming from a combat vet's point of view....

but to say just this, hand to hand, and having hit civilians is just about the worst nightmare any professional soldier can face. It's not like the movies, in hand to hand or CQB you see the faces of those you kill up real close not just a target off in the distance through a gun sight. It lives with you, its something you will NEVER forget, it eats away at you and no one ever is the same again afterwards....

its hard to explain but you become almost de-humanised (for want of a better expression) things like sudden and violent deaths are no longer shocking anymore....

anyway, I feel for these servicemen i have walked that dark path, sometimes in my nightmares i still do....

this is something you cant understand untill you have lived it, and to be sure it will be part of at least my part of the formal...

I've always thought that if wars were to be fought, you ought to be able to look the person you're trying to kill in the eyes... rather than drop bombs on them from 13,000 feet or even from across the country...

You'd think that if people had to face the other human being, there'd be much less war going on... Because it is such a traumatic event...

But then, remembering back through history, there's been more wars than this one fought hand to hand, and it never helped anything nor did it ever decrease the number of battles fought...

It's just tragic. Simply tragic.

High time to be done with it all...

The men and women who've had to be over there deserve major props. I know for a fact I wouldn't be able to do it.

Bodhi: with respect ya dont really want to be able to look the other person in the eyes....

quote:

---

The men and women who've had to be over there deserve major props. I know for a fact I wouldn't be able to do it.

---

kinda argues against ya point....

Its a lot better when you cant see them that close trust me.....

Tom - that's the whole point. As traumatic as it is to kill someone hand to hand, you'd think folks would think harder about sending good men & women off to do it or die trying...

History argues against me...


I guess I was just saying that I'd had that thought in the past, but have since decided that it would never work...

That's the thing about the evolution of war though isn't it?

Between the first use of a club as a weapon to the invention of Inter-Continental Ballistic Missiles, every step has been an attempt to further one's self from the very act of killing, in a way.

Clubs are short-range, but better than a stone (unless thrown). Spears are better, but then bows and arrows come along... Aha! Can't get much further than guns, eh? Rockets? Missiles!

Okay, so casualty numbers and killing efficiency are prime factors in the historical development of weapons technology, I know...

Anyway, my point is we didn't always have the long-range (anonymous and ominous) effective killing technology that we have today, but humans have always shown a willingness to get into the act of killing other people with more-or-less anything you put in their hands.

Seeing eachother face-to-face didn't seem to stop many wars in history (though a few hard stares might plausibly have had a baring on the outcome - you never know).

I feel for all our lads out there - especially when I fear that they will be returning to a climate of doubt and debate over the very motives for the war they have so bravely fought. That can't help with the nightmares much, can it?

The problem with war is that it all comes down to blood and guts eventually, whether the weapons are long or short range; and there are few things that are more dehumanizing. While the weapons don't seem to make a difference, I think there would be many less wars fought if the leaders who declared the wars were the ones who had to fight them. Obviously, if there were a direct attack on your country (or, presumably, an ally's), most people, including the leaders, would probably be willing to kill/die, whether they were using missiles or their claws, in defense of country, family and way of life. But I wonder if Bush would have thought that attacking Iraq was so critical if he or his daughters were on the front lines and it was their lives in the balance? I think that he probably would have thought twice about it. So would most leaders who are resting comfortably on their thrones, watching other people or their children do the dirty work.

I don't think so much that people have a willingness to get into killing, but sometimes there are justifiable reasons. And sometimes there aren't. I feel sorry for our troops, because, like in Vietnam, the reasons that they are fighting and dying aren't clear. It can't make it easy, no matter which side of the gun you're on.

Dragonlady

I wasn't really suggesting a 'willingness to kill' as such - my intended meaining was that the tools used make little difference to one's resolve when the act of killing itself becomes a necessity. Soldiers who know that they must fight and kill or die for a cause (or simply because they've been ordered to) will ultimately do so with whatever they are trained to use. A few centuries ago, this came down to very sharp bits of metal which didn't travel much further than the arm (unless it was attached to something that could be thrown or bowed).

I agree that today's leaders are not exactly 'warrior-kings', but then, if Churchill had taken a bayonet for his country, he wouldn't have been much good for the task of leading it through the war.

I think that Tony Blair and his cabinet should be made to fight a campaign or two with the troops. If nothing else, they might at least get to see first hand the problems caused by inferior equipment and insufficient supplies.



"Oi, Tony - when you've finished gaffer-taping your boots back together, I want you to storm that MG nest."

"But sir, my SA80 keeps jamming..!"

"Your bullet (sic) will last longer then, won't it? NOW MOVE IT!"

On a bit of a sidenote, and back to the historical aspect -

History does most certainly argue against the idea that killing face-to-face will reduce wars (just to reiterate), and it also argues against the idea that if leaders were the ones to fight, there'd be less wars.

A *huge* number of historical leaders were very directly involved in any fighting, many of them having gained their leadership as a direct result of their military prowess (both strategically and through direct hand to hand combat).

Essentially, you just end up with more people who are totally desensitized to violence.

Indeed, there are many historical leaders (and legends) who were directly involved in their own wars; with invasions, crusades, and so on.

The world just doesn't work like that any more.

And now for something completely different:

quote:

---

"When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite."
- Sir Winston Churchill.

---

I previously misquoted that...

(Edited by White Hawk on 07-07-2004 19:55)

Today's leaders aren't exactly warriors, and I don't necessarily think that they should be. I just think that if they or their loved ones were the ones doing the fighting they would probably pick their battles with a little more wisdom. . . or at least a little more thought, if wisdom is hard to come by . . .

Hehehe, Churchill.... actually he was one of the few english prime ministers i can remember that actually took part in combat.... in his younger years... he actually was at the shooting end of things aswell....

also prince andrew 2nd in line to the english throne flew combat misisons in the falklands war, the present queens husband saw comabt in WWII

but then again the english monarchy doesnt actually have that much power any more but it goes to show that even our royal familly get their hands dirty when needed..

JFK another combat vet.... got just about as close to anyone has of starting wwIII but he knew what it meant, but had the balls to walk to the edge and luckilly it stopped there...

at the end of the day this isnt about leaders etc, its about the mental state of combat vet's its them we should focus on... not the methods or the means or the reasons why....