The real cost of IRAQ: PTSD and the second war

[iamthewalrus109]

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

[jaguar]

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.

[xoxoxoBruce]

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.

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

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.

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

[russotto]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

But Jag. if we cared about them we wouldn't have fucked up their country in the first place.

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

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by russotto

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?

[jaguar]

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.

[russotto]

Originally Posted by richlevy

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.

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?

[Happy Monkey]

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.

[russotto]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

Another way of putting that is:

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

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

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

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.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by russotto

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

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.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

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.

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.

[Undertoad]

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

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

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.

[Carbonated_Brains]

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.