"It’s time for an honest conversation about what it means..." Topic
9 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
Please remember not to make new product announcements on the forum. Our advertisers pay for the privilege of making such announcements.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the Ultramodern Warfare (2014-present) Message Board
Action Log
31 Dec 2014 6:01 a.m. PST by Editor in Chief Bill
- Removed from Modern Media board
- Crossposted to Ultramodern (2004-2014) board
Areas of InterestModern
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Featured Profile Article
|
Tango01 | 26 Nov 2014 10:21 p.m. PST |
…to kill in war. "Last week, General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, told a Congressional committee that his office was still considering whether or not the US should send ground troops to Iraq to fight ISIL (a.k.a. the Islamic State). Some in Congress and the military think the idea is past due, and that only American combat troops can neutralize the threat ISIL poses to Syria, Iraq, and beyond. With Chuck Hagel's resignation as defense secretary on Nov. 24—not to mention a move to slow the troop withdrawal in Afghanistan—a shift in policy may indeed be in the offing. But what everyone must understand is that if boots are put on the ground and a fighting war begins, American servicemen will not only likely be killed, but will also be killing. That may sound obvious. Of course combat soldiers have to kill. And yet over the past year, as I've been reporting and writing about killing in combat—a project born from time spent covering the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and several other countries over the past decade—I've seen that this part of combat, obvious though it may be, remains one of the least discussed and most overlooked, despite the profound implications it has for all involved…" Full article here link Amicalement Armand |
Legion 4 | 27 Nov 2014 8:01 a.m. PST |
Being a former Grunt … it's pretty clear to me … As long as you Don't violate the Law, commit war crimes, etc. … As a Grunt on the ground you kill as many of the enemy as possible, in large numbers every day, all day, as long as targets/the enemy presents itself. Using all assets available organically to your unit and everything you can call-in for support. Like tanks, CAS, Gunships, FA, etc., etc. … |
Tango01 | 27 Nov 2014 11:39 a.m. PST |
|
shrike6 | 27 Nov 2014 12:43 p.m. PST |
Bullets on target and stack 'em high. |
Apache 6 | 30 Dec 2014 12:47 p.m. PST |
The below is on USMC required reading list for Officers/SNCOs. On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society. link . Psychological effects of combat and how to mitigate mitigate/prevent/and develop understanding of the trauma/effects/aftermath of combat are subjects of discussion and education at Professional military education and predeploymnet training. I'm not saying it's perfect but the military at least acknowledges and tries to understand the issues. I passionately agree that the Nation needs to have a conversation. Gen Mattis, a well respected recently retired USMC Officer recently addressed some challenges in open forum. link There are huge political, resourcing and 'medical' issues tied around the "medical labeling" of PTSD in veterans, assignment of life long benefits, and attached stigmas. This issue is closely tied to the over prescription of medications in general in the U.S. Modern American (and by extension western?) medical practice (at least in the Veterans Administration) is that changes resulting from combat experiences are lumped into a generic 'PTSD' label, which the medical community tries too often (in my non-medical opinion) to treat with drugs or literally endless counselling with medical professionals; who are too often clueless about or openly hostile to the military and/or veterans. Again, in my opinion this is likely not the best way to deal with issues and is often counterproductive for the individual. Some elements of "Media" and "academia" have created/reinforced stigmas around PTSD which causes some segment of the population to have irrational fear of veterans. Unfortunately This is very common on college campuses, where many veterans go on GI bill. I've served as a reference for several veterans and had potential employers either openly ask about violence/PTSD or subtly implied in their questions that they were very concerned about it. Most medical and mental health professionals don't understand the military and have, in my opinion, 'academically' scewed understanding of morals, ethics, and life in the real world that cause them to treat what are unfortunate realities of the world as abnormal. In the real world their are evil people who have to be dealt with by good men. Western civilization has been organized in a way that "WE" authorize/expect the military (and police) to use force to deal with those people. Yes, I understand the above is out of fashion in polite company, but I believe it remains true. Civilian mental health professionals have a problem with the idea of any violence being appropriate, and often don't understand how someone who has done/received/or been part of it can not be severely and dangerously effected. Again, there are very real issues, and 'society' needs to address them, the high suicide rate is the worst indicator. Attaching a generic 'stigma' of PTSD is not the way to deal with the issue. I actually think the American (and I think I can extend this to the British, Canadian and Australians people as well) people understand the issue better then 'academia,' The support for our Service members and veterans from the average citizen has been nothing short of superb. There are disconnects in society between the military, civilian medical professionals, and media which are not healthy for either the individual veteran or society as a whole. |
swammeyjoe | 30 Dec 2014 10:51 p.m. PST |
It's not just the stigma around PTSD, it's a stigma that surrounds any and all mental health issues. PTSD is real, and it is silly and dangerous to try and pretend otherwise. As a society, though, we need to change the way we react to it and find better methods of treating all mental health concerns. Better treatments need to be researched and employed. Also, I would strongly disagree that the average person understands the issue better than trained professionals. The average American (in certain demographics, at least) is deeply patriotic and supportive of the military, but that does not bestow upon them any more medical or psychiatric knowledge. Mental health is a very serious issue, and it is something that we should look at from all angles, both in terms of improving treatment and in terms of looking for ways to stop "preventable" mental issues (PTSD being one of them). |
Legion 4 | 31 Dec 2014 10:03 a.m. PST |
Grossman's book is an excellent read … should be read by all the members of Congress, the POTUS + staff, etc., etc. … Some elements of "Media" and "academia" have created/reinforced stigmas around PTSD which causes some segment of the population to have irrational fear of veterans. Unfortunately This is very common on college campuses, where many veterans go on GI bill. I've served as a reference for several veterans and had potential employers either openly ask about violence/PTSD or subtly implied in their questions that they were very concerned about it. Most medical and mental health professionals don't understand the military and have, in my opinion, 'academically' scewed understanding of morals, ethics, and life in the real world that cause them to treat what are unfortunate realities of the world as abnormal. And there is the rub … |
Apache 6 | 08 Jan 2015 10:16 a.m. PST |
Swammyjoe: I think we are basically saying the same thing and I certainly never intended to say PTSD is not real. I understand that there are a huge range of human reactions to being exposed to combat. Some of these reactions are "normal" part of life and others are dangerous/detrimental to the individual and to far lesser extent those around them. Currently I believe we attach the heavily stigmatized and imprecise "PTSD" label, saying the individual has "mental health" issues to far too many veterans. Partially this is the VA and 'mental health' professionals trying to 'help-out' veterans by ensuring they have access to care if needed. The intent is good. Their are significant secondary effects that are not. The VA states that ~`30% of current veterans ( link ) are diagnosed as having PTSD. I'm certain, that less than 30% of recent veterans have actually been involved in anything that would be considered close combat. It's rare but I know of 'less than stellar individuals' ( yes, I understand my biases are showing ) who have never "left the wire" ( and in one case who never deployed overseas ) actively seeking to be diagnosed with PTSD for the monetary benefits. Gen Mattis states pretty well that we do a disservice to veterans by labeling them as 'victims' of "PTSD." Again, I absolutely understand that we have veterans who need help. I'm afraid that we run the risk of "losing" track of veterans who really need help because of 'over-diagnosis.' And yes, sometimes civilian mental health professionals have scewed views of veterans/the military/the use of violence. Again, in my experience they may not be the best equipped to deal with issues and their "assistance" may be counterproductive for the individual. I agree that we need serious discussion about mental health in the U.S. I think we 'over-diagnose a lot of things and we "lose people" with serious issues. The number of male children treated with medications for ADHD is frightening. |
Visceral Impact Studios | 08 Jan 2015 11:38 a.m. PST |
Bryan, "PTSD" isn't limited to 11Bs who have been in multiple firefights. There are kids in some of the rougher sections of major American cities who suffer from PTSD. Kids from homes dominated by extreme domestic violence. And there are people in the military who don't have a combat arms MOS but who definitely saw a lot of action, came under fire, and were wounded or killed while never leaving the wire. In fact, one cause of PTSD is a feeling that there's nothing one can do to control one's fate in a war zone/violent situation and simply going to the dining hall risks death from random mortar or rocket attack or from green-on-blue violence. Cops and EMTs who have never been shot at develop PTSD after years of pulling the mutilated corpses of small children from car wrecks. Same goes for nurses and doctors who treat combat wounded in Germany. Some people who are exposed directly to combat and other violent situations handle it quite well. We have a family friend who served in WIII (Iwo Jima) and the Korean War (as what we would call today a "DMR"…he loved sniping North Koreans and Chinese) and he leads a veterans group and writes books. Others, as one member of my family did, take their own lives even years after being in combat. I agree that the medical-insurance-business complex often over-diagnoses conditions. We've seen kids in our community magically "cured" of various mental health issues when insurance money runs out! But physical wounds are still perceived as somehow more "honorable" that the mental wounds that are just as real and sometimes more debilitating. IIRC it was in 2011 that the military finally started awarding the Purple Heart for mental wounds suffered in combat. And on today's battlefield "combat" doesn't respect front lines defined by opposing trench lines. Going to the latrine, eating chow, or driving a supply truck is often extremely dangerous and there's even less you can do to control your fate in those situations ("Here's your supply truck Joe, drive it along this highway where you're almost certainly get hit by an IED or ambush…and by they way, there's nothing you can really do about than drive the truck). |
|