Yes, Virginia, that number in the title to this post really is true. How do I know this, being the lying, liberal traitor that I am, prone to to slander our noble warriors in the US Armed Forces? Because I didn’t pull that number out of the nether regions of my body. It comes to you courtesy of the United States Department of Defense, which has just revealed this staggering statistic: that 40,000 vets of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have been diagnosed with PTSD.
WASHINGTON — The number of troops with new cases of post-traumatic stress disorder jumped by roughly 50 percent in 2007 amid the military buildup in Iraq and increased violence there and in Afghanistan.
Records show roughly 40,000 troops have been diagnosed with the illness, also known as PTSD, since 2003. Officials believe that many more are likely keeping their illness a secret.
“I don’t think right now we … have good numbers,” Army Surgeon General Eric Schoomaker said Tuesday.
Defense officials had not previously disclosed the number of PTSD cases from Iraq and Afghanistan.
The key words above are “diagnosed” and General Schoomaker’s remarks that we don’t “have good numbers.” As indeed we don’t since we know Bush administration officials have purposefully told Veterans Administration clinicians to diagnose many PTSD sufferers with the less severe “Adjustment Disorder” in order to limit their ability to claim disability benefits:
A psychologist who helps lead the post-traumatic stress disorder program at a medical facility for veterans in Texas told staff members to refrain from diagnosing PTSD because so many veterans were seeking government disability payments for the condition.
“Given that we are having more and more compensation seeking veterans, I’d like to suggest that you refrain from giving a diagnosis of PTSD straight out,” Norma Perez wrote in a March 20 e-mail to mental-health specialists and social workers at the Department of Veterans Affairs’ Olin E. Teague Veterans’ Center in Temple, Tex. Instead, she recommended that they “consider a diagnosis of Adjustment Disorder.” […]
Veterans diagnosed with PTSD can be eligible for disability compensation of up to $2,527 a month, depending on the severity of the condition, said Alison Aikele, a VA spokeswoman. Those found to have adjustment disorder generally are not offered such payments, though veterans can receive medical treatment for either condition.
Perhaps someone should ask John McCain if he supports this policy of shortchanging so many wounded veterans (and yes, PTSD is a physical wounding of the brain’s structure and function as debilitating as any other combat injury) as well as his support for George Bush’s threatened veto of the GI benefits bill which recently was passed by the Senate. Since only Republicans support the troops, I’d like to know what he thinks about our current commander-in-chief’s outrageous dereliction of duty toward our combat veterans.
Oh, I forgot. He isn’t called John McSame for nothing.
While the rest of the body has reached maturity the human brain, especially the frontal regions which control emotions and self-control, continued to grow and mature during the late teens and early twenties.
That’s what makes young people such good cannon fodder. And that’s why younger men and women are more likely to suffer PTSD.
The good news is that science is working on these areas of mental trauma, and with care these war wounds can be ameliorated and healed. The bad news is that the Republicans want the young people who sacrificed to fight this dreadful war to wander the streets with these invisible wounds.
They volunteered. Volunteered for service in a military commanded by an obvious war criminal. If I actively sought employment with a corporation headed by a known criminal would I have standing to complain of the migraines resulting from the stress of being in the employ of said criminal? I think not. I shouldn’t have taken the job in the first place. It’s unfortunate some in our society have fallen victim to the notion service in the military is a noble enterprise worthy of admiration and respect. It’s not. If you choose to enlist in today’s military you’ve willingly if not enthusiastically made yourself party to crimes against humanity. The consequences for joining a criminal enterprise are hardly the concern of society unless of course it is to punish such behavior, not laud it.
I’m sorry but that’s an incredibly callous and ungenerous remark.
“It is so little true that martyrs offer any support to the truth of a cause that I am inclined to deny that any martyr has ever had anything to do with the truth at all.”
Friedrich Nietzsche
I agree with you Steven D. and echo your thoughts here. My guess is that a very high majority of our troops in Iraq had almost no idea of what they were getting into when they signed up. Without question, the nation must provide, as far as possible, for their complete rehabilitation, no matter what it costs.
“My guess is that a very high majority of our troops in Iraq had almost no idea of what they were getting into when they signed up.“
That is the lamest excuse in the world. Is it the American way now to refuse to take responsibility for one’s own choices, decisions, and actions? It seems to be quite the trend these days.
“Without question, the nation must provide, as far as possible, for their complete rehabilitation, no matter what it costs.“
Well, I do not disagree that every government should be responsible for taking care of those whom they have sent to kill and maim and destroy and be killed and maimed on its behalf.
And what about the rehabilitation of their victims? Does the “nation” have any responsibility to the millions of Iraqis who are suffering from PTSD, and worse, as a result of the actions of those it has trained to kill and maim and destroy, and then sent to practice what they have learned?
One can honor a responsibility to veterans and to the Iraqis, both.
Just not under the current administration.
Well, in all the volumes and volumes on the “troops as victims” bit (which I simply do not buy – where is THEIR responsibility?), we are not hearing a whole lot from the liberals and “progressives” about taking care of the real victims of this crime. And realistically, the United States government will NEVER pay reparations to Iraqis or to the State of Iraq (or whatever is left of it when the U.S. finally slinks out with its tail tucked into its hind legs), nor will it take responsibility for the millions of Iraqis whose lives it has destroyed. And only a tiny handful of American people will do anything to compensate Iraqis for what they allowed their government to do.
Of COURSE the government is responsible for taking care of those it sends to commit its crimes for it – that should go without saying – but let’s not turn them into hero-victims in the process, and let’s not overlook the true victims in this case.
I’ve posted many stories to the front page about the violence the Iraqis have suffered at our hands. I don’t think standing up for the harm that has been done to our soldiers automatically means you are against help for the Iraqi people too. That’s simply a false choice. The best thing we can do for them and us is to take our troops out.
I have no problem with paying war reparations but I’d have to trust the recipients of the money weren’t just going to line their own pockets like the people in the Maliki government we are paying money to now.
“I don’t think standing up for the harm that has been done to our soldiers automatically means you are against help for the Iraqi people too.“
You are right. It is just that I am very sick of hearing excuses made for the very people who are the direct cause of Iraqi suffering, I am very sick of hearing them portrayed as innocent victims, and I am very tired of hearing them portrayed as heroes. The only innocent victims in this case are the Iraqis, and the only heroes on the American side are those who have the courage to refuse to commit crimes on behalf of their government.
“The best thing we can do for them and us is to take our troops out.“
We could not possibly be more closely in agreement on this one. You are 100% correct.
“I have no problem with paying war reparations but I’d have to trust the recipients of the money weren’t just going to line their own pockets like the people in the Maliki government we are paying money to now.“
yeah, so if someone signed up to defend the country after Lower Manhattan was reduced to dust, they deserve the shitty treatment that they get?
Nice.
Thank you, Steve, for having the courage to say this.
The fact is that these people have had choices every step along the way. They chose to enlist, and those who enlisted AFTER March, 2003 chose to enlist knowing full well what they were enlisting for. They chose to go to Iraq instead of refusing and paying the lesser price of staying alive, mentally and physically whole, and with their integrity intact. And they chose to follow orders to violate international law, to kill, to maim, to destroy, and to violate human rights. They chose to victimize their fellow human beings.
Iraqis, on the other hand, have had absolutely NO choice, and have suffered far more and in astronomically greater numbers. They are the ones who need and deserve the sympathy and the assistance.
Thousands of military personnel have chosen to refuse by one means or another. THEY are the heroes, not the ones who have chosen to act as instruments and commit crimes on behalf of the criminals in Washington and the Pentagon.
Hurria, it’s a canard that “progressive/liberal/left leaning” blogs share an animus towards the present administration. Booman and Steven D both seem predisposed to forget our crimes and forgive those committing them. You’d think you’ve stumbled into a Michelle Malkin chat room.
You’d think you’ve stumbled into a Michelle Malkin chat room.
Yep, that’s us all right, wingnuts to the bitter end. Thanks for the laugh.
Someone should explain to us which human suffering deserves our concern and which does not.
Well, I guess I’m with Hurria on this one. The priority for care lies first with the victims of our crimes (the Iraqis) and secondarily with the perpetrators of the crimes (the U.S. military).
even if that is the case it is largely irrelevant to whether PTSD is a monumental concern among returning vets.
We have committees dedicated to Veteran’s Affairs in both the House and Senate, and it is, indeed, a Cabinet level position.
Setting policy for our Vets is a major area of policy concern and you should respect that.
I don’t think that is quite what I have said, though I can see how it could be interpreted that way. What I am objecting to is not that the government should take care of the people it sends half way across the world to commit its crimes – it owes them that for sure. What I am objecting to is the notion that those who allow themselves to be used as criminal instruments by the uber criminals are innocent victims.
PS Presenting the American troops as innocent lambs led to the slaughter is pretty much tantamount to presenting in that way a mob hit man sent to commit murder. The mob still owes him compensation for his actions, and medical care if he is hurt carrying out the crimes, but he is far from innocent.
Whatever. Steven and I take a backseat to no one in opposing this war. Our soldiers are our compatriots and they have been misled and mistreated just like the rest of us. I am not interested in having a debate about their relative level of culpability in the decision to invade Iraq or in their willingness to carry out their orders. For soldiers that have violated the Uniform Code, they deserve to be prosecuted, for those that have refused to carry out orders or a mission they consider immoral, they deserve praise, and for those that have been injured, they deserve compassion.
Regardless, when we ask our soldiers to put their life and health in harm’s way, it is our responsibility to take care of them when they come home. The fact that many of them have been given an immoral mission makes this more of an imperative in a way, because they have more problems living with the consequences of using lethal force.
BooMan, I am not questioning anyone’s anti-invasion/anti-occupation credentials here, least of all yours or Steven’s. Nor have I ever suggested that “the troops” (as they are so often referred to) have anything to do or any culpability in the decisions made by the government. What I am suggesting is that they should not be absolved of responsibility for making informed decisions about their own choices and their own actions, nor should they be absolved of responsibility for their own criminal and immoral actions, including for following criminal and immoral orders.
They are not innocent victims unless you hold that they are not adults with adult responsibilities. And if they are not adults with adult responsibilities, then the age at which one officially and legally becomes an adult and assumes adult responsibilities should be adjusted upwards accordingly.
We all have a responsibility to make sure we inform ourselves before making choices and taking actions that have great consequences in our lives and those of others. And that includes “the troops”.
Can’t agree with you on this one, SD. You’ve gone way to far here.
John Bolton to be target of citizen’s arrest in UK for war crimes.
There were plenty of people in our various branches of the military available to “defend the country”, as Booman puts it. It wasn’t as if an invasion on the scale of D-Day was announced and a sudden manpower shortage was feared. There were many facts and truths to seek and sort out as to the perpetrators of 9/11, including their origins, motives, supporters, future plots and the like. Blindly following the course demanded by the civilian leadership of your nation is rather thoughtless.
9/11 was our Kristallnacht and the people of Iraq the victims of our pogrom. Just as German citizens were whipped into a blind fury in November of 1938 so too were our young men and women goaded into action. Heeding a government’s call to criminal depravity is not made right strung with banners of patriotism. Many dozens, if not hundreds, of our civilian and military leadership need tried for their crimes. And as Nuremburg decreed those following their orders are no less culpable nor immune to punishment.
So, we should let all the soldiers who suffered just pay the price for Bush’s crimes. You ask too much of young people who trusted their country’s leaders only to send them to war when it was absolutely necessary to defend the nation.
Very few could satisfy such high standards.
“So, we should let all the soldiers who suffered just pay the price for Bush’s crimes.“
The soldiers should pay the price for their own crimes and Bush should pay the price for his. And the government should take care of the people it sends out to commit its crimes for it.
“You ask too much of young people who trusted their country’s leaders only to send them to war when it was absolutely necessary to defend the nation.“
Come on! When was the last time it was absolutely necessary to defend the United States? When was the last time the United States military was used to actually “defend the nation”?
“So, we should let all the soldiers who suffered just pay the price for Bush’s crimes. You ask too much of young people who trusted their country’s leaders only to send them to war when it was absolutely necessary to defend the nation.
Very few could satisfy such high standards.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Wrong. The purpose of a criminal justice system is as much to mete out punishment for crimes as it is to serve notice to present and future generations of unacceptable behavior and acts. Nuremburg, the Geneva Conventions and a host of other treaties, laws and international agreements all spell out permissible
conduct by those in the military and those directing them.
If I choose to sell homes it’s incumbent upon me to study the rules governing the real estate trade. If I knowingly or unknowingly break one of those rules I have myself to blame as evidently I was remiss in my studies. The same goes for the waging of war. Now, some would say an 18 or 19 year old kid can’t be expected to scrutinize the laws governing warfare like we expect a person in the private sector to obey their trade’s rules. Why not? These people have weapons. They kill other humans, imprison them, inflict bodily injuries, destroy homes and infrastructure. Certainly presuming to wield such powers makes it incumbent upon you to know the rules, much more so than knowing the laws dictating the proper sale of a house, no? So, ignorance of the law is no excuse for the atrocities visited upon the nations of Iraq and Afghanistan. Nor can a soldier plead he was only following orders (several Nazis tried that, didn’t work out so well. That Judge Jackson was such a fine, upstanding jurist I must say). Nowhere to hide guys, you’re busted. You have PTSD? Shouldn’t have stuck your hand in the meat grinder. There were safety stickers if you’d only read and heeded them.
I’m sorry for the vets who have PTSD as a result of their participation in the crimes in Iraq. It is so easy to forget that these poor unfortunate people ultimately had choices in the matter, and that they have millions of victims who have never had any choice at all.
There are literally millions of Iraqis with PTSD who can never escape the PTSD-producing situation, and who have absolutely no hope on earth of every getting treatment.
An entire generation of Iraqi children is scarred for life – they have no hope of ever achieving psychological normalcy.
So, while you all remember the veterans with and without PTSD, I will remember their victims.