The real cost of IRAQ: PTSD and the second war
 

In recent weeks news stories have been appearing in liberal and conserative papers and publications alike on returning Iraq war vets. One in particular dealt with Andres Raya, a 19 year old Marine out of Modesto who on this past Sunday shot up a Ceres, California neibhorhood, intent on not going back to Iraq. Killing one cop, then later running into police gunfire this "boy" decided to commit suicide by cop then go back to the sands of hell in Iraq. This inccident has prompted me to dig into what the future is for this country and our returning troops.

Upon reading this story I immediately put my research skills to work on what is actually happening to these vets. As discovered in another bloody, sometimes senseless war: Vietnam, GI's returned changed men, not the same. Something about the nature of that conflict changed what was called in WWII, battle fatigue to Post traumatic stress disorder. Many of the individuals most adversely effected by this physcological affliciton ended up homeless, hooked on drugs, or worse. Now today we have reports of new homeless vets, who come back to a world foriegn to them now.

With the nature of this conflict and the aggregious under funding of proper VA support, we are facing big problems assimilating these men and women, and the issue is a real one, especially considering the nature of this conflict. In some expert estimations, the cases of PTSD are going to be even more severe than Vietnam.

-Walrus

While you're right it's a bit trite to talk about as the second war, you've got an entire fucking country there that's going to have a whole generation grow up with PTSD, comparing that to 50k odd troops who'll come back fucked up is a bit over the top.

But Jag. if we cared about them we wouldn't have fucked up their country in the first place. ;)
It appears the incidence of Battle Fatigue/Post Traumatic Stress Disorder in our troops, in inversely proportional to the legitimacy of the war.
Most soldiers, at one time or other, say "I'm going through this shit for what?",
and better come up with a good reason or it will mess with their heads. :unsure:

Well, it got GWB re-elected, so what are they complaining about? :dead:

Right. We would have left them to Saddam's tender mercies.

Whatever happened to the conservative notion of personal responsibility?. If a populace is being abuse by a dictator, isn't it their responsibility to rebel. From what we are seeing in Iraq, they are certainly capable of doing so.

Here is one list of the world's worst dictators. Here is a ranking of all countries based upon level of freedom. Care to pick our next target?

richlevy, they don't make the criteria for that list clear but putting the head of China ahead of Robert Magabe and a fair few other bloodthirsty African dictators seems a tad skewed to me.

I see. So if a dictator is strong enough to prevent rebellion, it's the personal responsibility of the people under his control who have failed to defeat him?

Another way of putting that is:

Is it the responsibility of the US to invade every dictatorship and take custody?

Because once we do, the welfare of its people is absolutely our responsibility.

Obviously not. Which doesn't mean the US might not have reason to invade any particular dictatorship.

For a time, at least. I'd argue, "not indefinitely". But to say that if the US govt actually cared about the Iraqi people it would have left them to Saddam seems a bit perverse.

I read these as trying to imply that it was our responsibility to free the Iraqi people, thus justifying our invasion. I apologize if that wasn't your intent.

If you break it you own it.

First the people must rise up - to declare their intent to overthrough the government. Without that 'smoking gun', then regional nations have no obligation nor a mandate to intervene. Intervention would be nothing more than an illegal invasion without the prerequisite - a public uprising.

You may hate what the dictator is doing. But even in the most appauling dictatorships, the public does have sufficient strength and can easily rise up if that dictator is that unpopular. Like it or not, the reason why rebellion does not happen is because the people do like that dictator. Or do not dislike the dictator enough to justify open rebellion.

Stalin is a perfect example. If western propaganda was so accurate, then the USSR would have been in open rebellion. And yet look even today at so many Russians who regarded Stalin with a nostalgic appeal. Yes, there are others who openly hate the days of Stalin. But the point is that even today, enough so loved Stalin as to make open rebellion not possible. The people did not overthrow Stalin because so many people actually loved the so vicious Stalin. People were seen crying in the streets when Stalin died. Not all dictators deserve to be overthrown - as made obvious by no public revolution.

Its not the power of a dictator that quashes a public rebellion. It is that a dictator has sufficient popular support that makes open rebellion not possible. If the people so like that dictator, then no other nation has the right to 'liberate' those people. No smoking gun - a public uprising - means the dictator does have sufficient popular support.

Stalin was clearly a most dispicable dictator. But his people loved him - no matter what contrary propaganda said. No other nation had the right to liberate Russians from Stalin because those people did not want to be liberated. Same rule applies to other dictatorships. Liberation from a dictator is clearly not justified without a prerequisite. The people first rebell.

Doesn't it give you pause to think you're rationalizing tens of millions of deaths?

Doesn't it give you pause to think that he was our ally at one time? As were Marcos, Hussein, and a number of other thugs. We build them up, equip them, and then make it some poor shmucks job to go in there and clean it up.

I think it bears mention that Andres Raya, the topic of this post way back up at the top, was not suffering post-traumatic stress disorder, and did not commit suicide.

He was a gang member, he was high on cocaine at the time, and his Marine unit never even saw combat. Hell, he was getting transferred to Japan.

Source:

Andres was not an example of the horrors of war, he was an asshole turd who shot at cops.

Like the nature of this very thread, don't let reality get in the way of the little fairy tales in your head, Rich.

While the rest may be true you can't say he wasn't stressed. Motor transport unit? Aren't they the ones getting blown up all over the place, especially the fuel tanker drivers? :confused:

So which part of my 'reality' are you challenging?

Marcos ,



Hussein
http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB...ndshake300.jpg or Stalin?

We were Stalin's ally. We weren't Marcos' ally. We weren't Hussein's ally. We didn't build any of them up, we barely equipped them at all, and we didn't say it was some other poor schmuck's job to clean it up. So I guess I'm calling you out on about 90% of your statement.

Ooh again the Rummy-Hussein picture. Do tell us what that's supposed to be proof of.

From Wikipedia Sounds like an ally to me. :confused:

From The National Security Archive
:eyebrow:

"Ally" specifies something very different than somebody said in diplomacy that we were good buddies.

We looked the other way at Hussein for a few years while it was useful... period. The world was a very different place at the time when the major threat was the nuclear missiles aimed at our cities. And STILL we did not ally, we did sell tons of arms to Hussein (he was mostly armed by France and Russia), we did not ask others to take responsibility for what we had done.

I just want Rich to get the narrative right and not just spit out completely inaccurate, un-American statements for what appears to be the fun of it. The US has fucked up early and often but let's get the story right. It's important.

Ally - 1. One that is allied with another, especially by treaty: entered the war as an ally of France. 2. One in helpful association with another: legislators who are allies on most issues.

As Ayotallah Khomenei’s Islamic Revolution took hold in Iran, the United States saw Teheran as its main adversary in the Middle East, as did Iraq. Consequently, with huge levels of American support–over $40 billion in weapons and technology through the 1980s, with many transactions “off book”–Iraq fought against Iran for nearly a decade. In the latter stages of battle, eventually won by Iraq, U.S. officers provided intelligence and tactical advice to the Iraqis, all the while Baghdad was using chemical and biological weapons on the battlefield to suppress the Iranians.
http://hnn.us/articles/1066.html

•James Baker received an SD memo stating that Iraq was diligently developing chemical, biological, and new missiles, and that Baker was to "express our interest in broadening U.S.-Iraqi ties" to Iraqi Under-Secretary Hamdoon.

•Although the CIA and the Bush (Senior) Administration knew that Iraq’s Ministry of Industry and Military Industrialization (MIMI) "controlled entities were involved in Iraq's clandestine nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons programs and missile programs ... the Bush administration [approved] dozens of export licenses that [allowed] United States and foreign firms to ship sophisticated U.S. dual-use equipment to MIMI-controlled weapons factories".

•By October 1989, when all international banks had cut off loans to Iraq, President Bush signed National Security Directive (NSD) 26 mandating closer links with Iraq and $1 billion in agricultural loan guarantees.

•According to the Washington Post, the CIA began in 1984 secretly to give Iraq intelligence that Iraq uses to "calibrate" its mustard gas attacks on Iranian troops. In August, the CIA establishes a direct Washington-Baghdad intelligence link, and for 18 months, starting in early 1985, the CIA provided Iraq with "data from sensitive U.S. satellite reconnaissance photography...to assist Iraqi bombing raids." The Post’s source said that this data was essential to Iraq’s war effort.

•Later in the year the Reagan Administration secretly began to allow Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Egypt to transfer to Iraq U.S. howitzers, helicopters, bombs and other weapons. Reagan personally asked Italy’s Prime Minister Guilio Andreotti to channel arms to Iraq http://www.casi.org.uk/info/usdocs/usiraq80s90s.html

The United States re-established full diplomatic ties with Iraq on 26 November 1984.


Sounds like an ally to me.

Sounds like peanuts to me, on the global scale.

So we were allies on a local scale, but not a global scale?

40 BILLION smackers?
howitzers, helicopters, bombs and other weapons?
Data for 18 months thru a Washington-Baghdad intelligence link which was used to calibrate mustard gas attacks and was essential to Iraq's war effort against Iran?

If that's "peanuts," I'd like to see the elephant! :eyebrow:

Uhmm, these transactions were secret and later revealed by an individual to the Washington Post which managed to get its hands on the supporting documents from various government sources (check the last link in my post 3 back).

Graphs created by "Dissident Frogman" and "Admiral Quixote" have as much credibility as a paper on physics written by "Schrodinger's Cat."

So just a little bit pregnant? One figure is 200 million dollars worth of weapons in 1990. That's enough conventional weapons to arm a division, or to make tens of thousands of improvised explosive devices.

Were we the best of friends? Maybe not. Were we providing material support? Yes.

We limit our satellite photographs to only the closest of friends. This even moreso in the 1980s. We routinely provided Saddam with satellite photography in his war with Iran. That comes about as close to 'ally' as could be. Satellite photos are were about as sensitive as anything the US intelligence community can provide anyone. It is only provided to allies. Saddam was provided with satellite photos.

He's the problem with your reasoning UT. You worry about a paltry ten million (although the actual number is far smaller). I worry about first about the ten billion.

When you override well proven princples "to save people from themselves", then we have Iraq. We went in to save 24 million. Therefore we caused the deaths of 98,000 Iraqis. Where is the morality in that?

Not everyone wants democracy. Furthermore democracy does not necessarily create freedom. If it did, then how do you account for one of the world's greatest human rights violators in 1860 - the United States.

Democracy and freedom must be earned. If a country must sacrifice a few 100,000 to do so, then the democracy or freedom will be cherished. But they must do the sacrifice. They must prove that they want that democracy or that freedom. It must be earned - somethings with massive deaths - that that many others will not die.

Once a nation tries to impose democracy on another, then democracy has a routine habit of becoming tyranny.

IOW those who want to 'save' others - others who don't want to first save themselves - only then create Vietnams and iraqs. The two events are so stunningly similar right down to a national army that never stays for the fight and an insurgency that grows immensely faster than anyone can predict. This is what happens when some nation 'feels' god sent them to save others from themselves. It is also called a Crusade.

I guess we'll know in 9 days. How high does the voter turnout have to be to show they want Democracy?

Cat, nothing in your last link refers to a Post story documenting billions. Your first link casually tosses the number out like bait... without footnotes. Meanwhile, fucking Christ, all that Russian and French stuff is square on the books?

I got another thing in the "black budget": my dick. It's so big, it's undocumented.

And BTW tw, stop "big lieing" about the Iraqi body count, which even the Iraq Body Count says is about 17.5K max.

Dr. Buzzanco is associate professor of history at the University of Houston. He's the one who give the "billions" amount. The site the article is posted on is the History Network sponsored by George Mason University.

I haven't read the book that the article was excerpted from, so I can't tell you how he derives that amount. However, at least he's willing to give his name and is associated with a couple of legitimate outfits.

I'm sure your lady friends are pleased to discover you are so well-endowed.

Your count (I believe) is based upon the known deaths due to combat and violence. But the British version of the New England Journal of Medicine, The Lancet, published a more comprehensive report from work by Johns Hopkins, the Columbia School of Nursing, and the College of Medicine at Al-Mustansiriya University in Baghdad. These totals are attributed to those who died because of a US invasion. These include the many who are missing, died unnecessarily from diseases, etc. A real death count last year was determined to be about 98,000 Iraqi dead. Again, this is about as responsible a source as one can have.

One reason why those known death rates will be so much lower is demonstrated in the Lancet study. Of 61 violent deaths, only three involved actions by ground forces. 58 deaths were by "helicopter gunships, rockets, or other forms of aerial weaponry". Many who were killed would not make the official reports.

Then we have that 1 Jan 2005 article from The Economist. Often troops would just fire at innocents only because they might be a threat. If he is holding a cell phone as troops pass, then he was shot only because cell phone are used to explode roadside bombs. Where are all these deaths in that official counting? Remember, Americans in Iraq consider virtually everyone as potential enemies. It is that bad - just like Vietnam.

Brookings Institution says between 15,200 and 31,400 "killed as a result of violence from war and crime between May, 2003 and September 30, 2004." But violence only accounts for some of the deaths created by the illegal American invasion. The Lancet study did far more comprehensive surveys to obtain 98,000 deaths with a confidence level of 95%. Furthermore, the actual number is probably far higher. Falluja and Najaf - both had much higher than normal death rates and were removed from the statistical study as was An Bar provience and the region adjacent to the Syrian border. All had much higher death rates due to recent increases in violence.

IOW most deaths would not be reported in the standard 'body counts'. Bottom line - 98,000 is probably a conservative number. The number of dead Iraqi because they were liberated is actually believed to exceed 100,000. This is what happens when a nation is forcefully liberated. Even worse, this is what happens when the invading army was so poorly lead as to have no Phase Four plans.

In a country that tells its reporters to only report good news, the actual body counts are going to be higher. Welcome to Vietnam were the death rates are subverted by the political agenda. No UT, I did not lie. I simply provides a more accurate numbers. 98,000 dead and liberated Iraqis is a reasonable number.

17,000 is only the death rates we know of and only due to violence. The actual death rates created by an American invasion are far higher based upon statistical analysis, how many are killed by air and artillery (therefore not counted), and how Americans now shoot at anyone who might be a danger.

IOW "we had to kill the people to save them." Vietnam deja vu. 98,000 dead Iraqis is a more honest number. 17,000 dead - most dying after they were liberated - demonstrates the immorality of the illegal war.

If that is the case they should be compared against the number that would have died under Saddam, a practice I'm sure you would not agree with since you appear not to agree that Stalin starved people.

Saddam killed about 200,000 over a ten year period. George Jr's war caused the death of about 100,000 in just over one year. You tell me which one is moral.

If you're asking me to defend Saddam, don't bother, because I won't. As a US citizen, I am responsible for everything that my government does with my tax dollars, not what Saddam does with his. Saying we won't kill as many as Saddam, or that our torture is 'torture light' and therefore not as bad doesn't exactly seem be much in the way to wage a 'just war'.

In case you disagree and want to explore this further, I have prepared a few slogans we can use in the resulting campaign.

The Coalition - At Least We Haven't Raped Your Sister
The Coalition - At Least You Get to Keep Your Testicles
The Coalition - Less Than 100,000 Killed
The Coalition - Don't Worry About Us Staying Too Long - We Hate This (*&ing Place

To continue with richlevy's line of thought, what the hell are we doing comparing civilian body counts in an attempt to prove which side is the one of the angels? One man kills 10 people; another kills 100. Does this mean the jury in the trial of the first man lets him off because it could have been worse?

Anyone who wants to argue US intervention in Iraq on humanitarian grounds is making a false premise. 14% of the population in Rwanda were killed in its recent civil war. No American intervention there was ever seriously considered, and Rwanda is but one of many recent historical examples.

*cough*SUDAN*cough*

When Sudan starts producing more oil than Denmark, the US may become aware of humanitarian issues there. Frankly, I'm not holding my breath.

Cat, I have heard this argument applied over and over again and I still don't get it, please clarify: "If the US doesn't apply humanitarian principles to every single conflict in the world then it is not applying them in Iraq." How does this follow?

It may be a question of them even noticing a problem in an area unless there is some valuable resource there.

I can't speak for Cat, but our stated purposes for the buildup was that Iraq was actively building WMD's.

Our stated reasons for actually invading Iraq were:
Imminent threat of WMD attack from Iraq.
Imminent threat of Iraq processing nuclear materials.
Evidence of direct link between 9/11 and Iraq.

None of these have been proven beyond speculation. They have less of a basis in fact than evolution or creationism (ok, maybe not creationism).

The 'We went in to liberate Iraq' was a face-saving measure by the Bush administration. If we actually did go into Iraq to liberate it as our primary goal and the reasons given Congress were deliberate lies, than at minimum that is an impeachable offense and may even rise to Ann Coulter's (not mine) definition of treason.

If Cat is saying that this face-saving "Our intelligence was wrong but it was a good idea to invade anyway because we are spreading freedom" was applied to Iraq, or if the intelligence was cooked or over-stressed to gain the result of 'spreading freedom', than why aren't we 'spreading freedom' in places where the rule of law has completely broken down and people are being slaughtered in the streets, than I agree with her. The 200 billion and 11,000 casualties we are pissing down Iraq could have cleaned up most of Africa.

The US did not start the war in Iraq on humanitarian principles. The rationale for our invasion of that country was that Saddam was stock-piling a weapons arsenal which included WMD's. When this motive was found to be a false one, the spin doctor's suddenly began to talk about "spreading democracy," and how we were saving the Iraqui people from a greater evil. The problem that I have is with the hypocrisy that we went into Iraq in the first place out of humanitarian concern. Saddam's reign of terror was an excuse, but not the true REASON for the US invasion.

We should not forget the US attacked Saddam because Saddam was a terrorist. Now that the terrorism argument is becoming thread bare even among the George Jr supporters, we now have a new spin. The War on Tyranny.

Most notable are the questions being asked by the BBC. The spin doctors are now planning the spin on Iran. Remember the list. The US announced intentions to attack Iraq, Iran, and North Korea. Apparently we are actively sending special forces into Iran to identify targets. Based upon base construction and troop movements, this invasion would happen on or after 2006.

If you were Iran, what would you be doing? Building every weapon of mass destructions possible. Unfortunately, this just plays into the spin doctors plans. They will claim we had to invade Iran because they are building WMDs. Why is India and Pakistan exempt? That's what spin is all about. Forget the inconsistencies. Iran is a threat to the United States. We now call it a War against Tyranny. New words. Same old spin - that works.

Cat, I have heard this argument applied over and over again and I still don't get it, please clarify: "If the US doesn't apply humanitarian principles to every single conflict in the world then it is not applying them in Iraq." How does this follow?

Cat, what if they did give different reasons before the war and you weren't listening? edit to say: my point all along, starting from before you got here, has been if you want to hate Bush and the neocons, hate them for the right reasons.

Bush at the AEI in February 2003

How does Bush expect the Arab governments to listen to Arab intellectuals when his administration doesn't listen to intellectuals on science and social issues when their warnings conflict with preconceived notions or may impose limits on industries which are key sources of campaign funding?

The Arab intellectuals will have AK-47s.

No, if GWB is in their corner they will have M-16's with filed-off serial numbers.

What I think this guy is overlooking, or at least discounting, is Germany was all Germans and Japan all Japs. Iraq is more like the city dog pound. They're all dogs but more different than alike. :confused:

As I recall, the sequence of events was not 9/11 immediently followed by an outpouring of sympathy for the Arab world and a "by golly, all those poor folks really need is democracy" attitude. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Hell, I have no problem with ANY country having a democracy, if that's what their people want. Even the US can have a democracy for all I care, although Bush seems to disagree with me.

The example of Germany becoming democratic is a little disingenuous. Germany WAS a democracy before Hitler used a combination of fear and brute force to turn it into a dictatorship.

Well?

Personally I'd say around a 1/3 or so. The problem is that 1/3 could be pratically every shia and no sunnis...

UT, how can you be sure a high or low turnout is indicative of the Iraquis desire for democracy? Can’t there be other scenarios playing out?
For instance:

1-The Iraquis have been forced into a position where they have to participate in the process or the US will remain and the violence will continue to kill innocent bystanders.

2-The Iraquis have been forced to vote for the representation they want in order to prevent being ruled by the people the US chose.

3-The Iraquis have been brainwashed into believing that if they vote suddenly everything will be OK.

4-A hundred other scenarios stemming from personal experiences.

You may be right.....but I’m leery of such an over simplification. :confused:

Just ask 'em! buzzmachine has a summary of the reaction on Iraqi blogs.

http://messopotamian.blogspot.com/

http://hammorabi.blogspot.com/2005/0...raq-great.html