GUEST COLUMN: The invisible wounds of war

By Greg Dobbs, Special to the Rocky

Published May 10, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.

Text size

More Speakout

Comments

May 10, 2008

6:27 a.m.

Suggest removal

Mike_In_Hartsel writes:

Bull hockey. Has anyone noticed that the increase in post-battlefield mental trauma has increased in proportion to the increase in the number of psychiatrists and psychologists who are telling the public that soldiers can't cope? The number of mental disorders has grown so much over the years that it is a wonder how the human race ever survived without these mental experts to tell us how sick we really are and how we cannot cope with the realities of life and death.

Get rid of the psychiatrists and psychologists, who have all the answers but have never solved a single problem, and watch the general mental health of the world improve dramatically and quickly. They are Charlatans dancing in the misty smoke of deceit.

FYI - before you accuse me of being insensitive to the plight of combat soldiers, I have two purple hearts, both receieved in 1967. Been there, done that.
May 10, 2008

6:57 a.m.

Suggest removal

arby writes:

While I wouldn't put it quite as roughly as Mike. These people know what their primary function is. No matter what their secondary job may be. They have all volunteered and gone through training. The primary job of any soldier, sailor, marine or airman is to protect our country and kill the enemy. That is what they are being paid for. They should all understand that by the time they get out of basic training. Unfortunatly in Vietnam and now in Afghanistan and Iraq sometimes it's hard to tell the enemy from a civilian. Well that's the fault of the locals and not the fault of our troops. I for one would side on saving my unit and my life rather than worrying about a possible enemy/victim. They are the ones making these rules not us.
To sum it up these guys and girls knew what they were in for before they hit the ground. Suck it up and do the job you're being paid to do.
May 10, 2008

8:48 a.m.

Suggest removal

mikeyg writes:

This article lacks perspective and the selective omission of relevant information by Dobbs actually does harm to veterans. It does not mention general population suicide rates by age and gender ranges as a comparison - there is no appreciable difference:

"The overall U.S. suicide rate among men is four times higher than in women at about 23 per 100,000 versus about 6 per 100,000 in women, according to the most recent government data." http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080508/a...

compared to:

"Last year, the Army said its suicide rate in 2006 rose to 17.3 per 100,000 troops, the highest level in 26 years of record-keeping." http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23132421/...

When you account for the gender composition of our military these numbers are nearly identical.

Vets are no more or less prone to mental illness that results in suicides than non-vets, and are nervous about being stigmatized, creating difficulties in their reintegration to civilian life. Dobbs does them no favors by omitting information that gives this important perspective. Shame on you, Mr. Dobbs.
May 10, 2008

8:57 a.m.

Suggest removal

mikeyg writes:

Looks to me like Greg Dobbs took his marching orders from MSNBC, home of uber-liberal, anti-military and anti-national defense freaks like Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann on this Speakout, given that MSNBC just put this story out there earlier this week.

Nice originality, Greg, just couldn't help yourself from participating in the liberal/progressive echo chamber that constantly tries to denegrate our military and make them out to be poor victims of "The Republican War Machine", could you?
May 10, 2008

10:07 a.m.

Suggest removal

davis_x_machina writes:

Mikey- does the person or agency reporting the fact of these deaths make them any less dead, or their deaths less devastating to their families?I love the obvious keyboard commando earlier who's advice is just suck it up,and it's their job- which is true, but it doesn't make it any easier obviously the keyboard commando thinks killing another human being or seeing the result of high explosives on the human body is just as natural as breathing. That alone lets me know the commando has never been to a combat zone, or if it has it's one of those twisted individuals for whom death has no meaning, some sort of incipient Jeffrey Dahmer.
Before you ask KC mikey- 2nd Bn., 12th Inf. Reg.,25th Inf. Div. RVN 1965-1966 MOS 11B30 been there done that.
May 10, 2008

11:24 a.m.

Suggest removal

JJ writes:

How sad that so many people would downplay the seriousness of what Dobbs is sharing with the public. One of the facts about war, especially this one (Iraq) is that its horror is hidden from the those back home who are often suppporting it and in some cases benefiting from it financially. (Not to mention the issue of how many are willing to send others into battle when they themselves never served.) In our nation which is based on the Judaic-Christian traditions, we are taught THOU SHALT NOT KILL from the time we are children. Then our warriors, whether they are volunteers or non volunteers as when there is a draft (Vietnam) are taught now it is ok to kill. Most veterans returning from war spend much of their remaining life dealing with that struggle. Many do not choose to talk about it. Some turn to substance abuse, no doubt one way to escape. (There is also a multitude of substance abuse within the ranks of those stationed in Iraq.) We don't always know what really is going in inside one's hearts and minds. For the folks who responded on this site so toughly to what these vets are going through-all I can say is, where are your hearts and where is your compassion? When soldiers receive wounds of the body would you not think they would be given the best treatment ever? Why not with the mind? It seems to me that there is a blatant lack of understanding of mental health issues as revealed in some of those who have commented on this article. But then mental health education has a long way to go in this nation. In closing I have no connection whatsoever to the medical profession.
May 10, 2008

11:33 a.m.

Suggest removal

JJ writes:

To mickyg:
Do you have data on the number of ATTEMPTED suicides in the general population? I think that is another point strongly mention in this article. Perhaps attempted suicides are not recorded in regard to the general population. Don't know how that data would support what you shared or not support it.
May 10, 2008

12:16 p.m.

Suggest removal

mikeyg writes:

Suicide is brought on by mental illness or a temporary lack of perspective on life's challenges. It occurs throughout society, and the military is a microcosm of society. The fact that suicides occured among vets at a slightly lower rate than the general population per 100,000 people than they do today - while we are asking our soldiers to carry so much of the burden of protecting us in our coddled lives at home and around the world from fanatics hell bent on destroying us - is not surprising.

Suicide is the most devastating and incomprehensible act a human being can take. I had a close friend blow his own head off a couple years ago, and while his life at the time contained the variables that compelled the act, we later learned that the thoughts had been deep inside him from a very young age.

This is no different among veterans. While the burdens they carry in protecting us are large, the ones who end their own lives do so because of much earlier mental health issues than what they acquire in a combat zone. The seeds of suicide are planted at a very early age.

While I agree that we should do more as a society to help with suicide prevention, and that the VA has a special obligation to those who have served our nation bravely, PERSPECTIVE is what is lacking in this article.

And that PERSPECTIVE is what separates this from being a story that can serve as a call to action for suicide prevention for all people and a story designed to get the anti-war, anti-military, anti-national defense, uber-liberal crowd's panties in a wad.

You don't help our veterans by portraying them as more unstable than the general population as a result of their trials and sacrifices when their suicide rates are still the same as everyone else's. You make their reintegration in life harder. You make potential employers hesitate in hiring a veteran out of fear of mental instability. You make potential love interests hesitate in dating a veteran out of fear of mental instability. You make landlords hesitate in leasing housing out of fear of mental instability. You do this when you don't include the critical fact that suicide rates for veterans are the same as civilians.

You suffer from the same liberal elitism that Obama unwittingly disclosed in his "cling to guns and religion" comments. Your concerns for veterans can only be characterized as crocodile tears, no real care for how they can be helped, only how you can use them for your political agenda. And they resent it. I know, I'm a veteran myself who works with other veterans DAILY. Veterans who have lost their limbs, their friends, their dreams of childhood in service to this nation in this war. And who would do it all over again. Something selfish leftist pacifists who would have us all commit to a mass suicide pact rather than fight the islamofacists to defend American values can't comprehend.
May 10, 2008

12:42 p.m.

Suggest removal

mikeyg writes:

By the way, how many of you know that the term "Kool-Aid Drinkers" was coined as a result of socialist pacifists led by Jim Jones of the People's Temple who killed themselves drinking flavored water?

These were the same kinds of utopian-visioned leftists who chastised America in much the same way Rev. Jeremiah Wright, William Ayers (Weather Underground terrorist) and the other "black activists, Marxist professors, structural feminists" friends Obama has "carefully chose" (Dreams From My Father, pages 100-101) throughout his life. I'm quite certain that if not for a quirk of fate Obama's mom, Ann Soetoro, would have been a Jim Jones disciple.

To think a large portion of America would follow Obama to national suicide disgusts and scares the hell out of me.
May 10, 2008

2:54 p.m.

Suggest removal

JJ writes:

100 years of war in Iraq scares me beyond belief. We need to be focusing on our own nation which is in need of so much it isn't even funny. In 2004 ,4 more years of Bush scared the daylights out of me and that was warranted as exemplified in the current state of the nation. Thank goodness people finally are getting it and supporting new leadership that takes a different direction. Fact: There are hundreds and hundreds of new voters coming out in droves to vote in the presidential primaries. That is because they realize just how bad things are. Remember the fall of the Roman Empire, the Greek Empire, etc. If you read history you see that frequently empires fall when the leaders wage wars that the empire can no longer pay for. That is where we are headed if the policies of the Bush years continue. You can use all the labels you want to describe other people who have another way of looking at the state of the nation. That accomplishes nothing. Fear mongering has gotten us no where. Who ever is elected in the fall will have a huge job before them. What we need are the citizens of this nation to unite around which ever candidate is elected and work for solutions. Name calling drags us down and lessens our effectiveness in living up to the values and ideals this nation was founded on.
May 10, 2008

3:38 p.m.

Suggest removal

mikeyg writes:

100 years, blah, blah, blah. That's BS and you know it. McCain was talking about a stature in Iraq much like ours in Germany and Japan for the past 63 years or South Korea for the past 55 years. Not a shooting war, rather a forward projection of strength that prevents a shooting war or the expansion of our enemies into a strategicly important region of the world.

But, you are right in your assessment that "name calling drags us down and lessens our effectiveness". It's a shame that your side of the political spectrum only has an appreciation for that if your party is in power, but you've had no concern for your words while Republicans have led. Sure, if Dems run the show after November you're going to want everyone to line up like lemmings to unite behind the Marxist-Socialist agenda of Barack Hussein Obama. Yeah, just like you guys lined up behind Reps to unite behind a conservative agenda.

You'll find out that dissent is just as American a value for conservatives when they're in the minority as it's been for liberals while they were in the minority. Calling us names and pretending you serve a higher moral authority won't intimidate us into submission to the suicidal approach to foreign policy your presidential nominee advocates.
May 10, 2008

3:46 p.m.

Suggest removal

compassionatecitizen writes:

"I am not against all wars, just dumb wars."

Iraq was & is a dumb war. Currently a dumb occupation.

Some commenters here have apparantly drunk the "neo-con" kool-aid. I watch c-span and virtually all of the Generals have said that there is not a miitary solution in Iraq, only a diplomatic soution. Where is the diplomatic solution? After 5 years of occupation, our military success or failure in Iraq seems to depend mostly on the whims of al Sadr... ceasefire... kill Americans... ceasefire... kill Americans.

The "neo-con" kool-aid puts you in a very narrow frame of reference that ignores the facts. One of the reasons that we should leave Iraq is that al Qaeda wants us there. Iraq has been a better recruiting tool than al Qaeda could ever have imagined. Another reason we should leave Iraq is that our military is "broken", "broken" is another word used by the Generals on c-span.

If you check the voting records in Congress, you will find that very few Republicans consistantly vote for care of veterans, instead they prefer to vote only for the "military industrial complex". Pretty sad.

Think about how the "neo-con" kool-aid has created your narrow vision, devoid of facts, and expand your vision to include some facts.
May 10, 2008

3:58 p.m.

Suggest removal

mikeyg writes:

Drinking kool-aid is a distinctly liberal-progressive-socialist phenomenom as explained earlier. You guys are dangerously weak on national security and willing to run up the white flag of surrender to anyone who looks menacing to you. Fortunately, America does not have a majority of yellow-bellied wimps like Obama and "compassionatecitizen", and will not entrust your ilk with our national survival.
May 10, 2008

5:20 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

"before you accuse me of being insensitive to the plight of combat soldiers"---you're not being insensitive...you've being ignorant. you can change the latter.

"You guys are dangerously weak on national security and willing to run up the white flag of surrender to anyone who looks menacing to you."

this is a strawman argument. but i'll ask...what about starting an unnecessary war that has made us weaker and less safe while strengthening our enemies makes you believe that the republicans are "strong" on national security?
May 10, 2008

5:31 p.m.

Suggest removal

mikeyg writes:

"unnecessary war"

What a bunch of ignorant hogwash, talk about drinking the kool-aid!

From "Rethinking the Iraq Critics" today:

"One such narrative is, "Bush lied; people died." The claim is that "neocons," including Feith, politicized intelligence to show that Saddam Hussein's regime had weapons of mass destruction. Not so, as the Senate Intelligence Committee and the Silberman-Robb Commission have concluded already. Every intelligence agency believed Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, and the post-invasion Duelfer report concluded that he maintained the capability to produce them on short notice. There was abundant evidence of contacts between Saddam's regime and al-Qaida and other terrorist groups. Given Saddam's hostility to the United States and his stonewalling of the United Nations, American leaders had every reason to believe he posed a grave threat. Removing him removed that threat."

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/arti...

You and the rest of your liberal-progressive-socialist comrades like Barack Hussein Obama truly are too weak to be trusted with our national defense, only capable of self-indulgent psychobabble that would imperil our very survival if adopted as national policy.
May 10, 2008

5:37 p.m.

Suggest removal

compassionatecitizen writes:

mikeyg,
You have absolutely no facts to back up your last comment! None at all, that is why, apparantly, you can only resort to name calling.
There is a difference between 'smart' national security and 'dumb' national security. Going into Iraq was dumb and has indeed made us less safe, not more safe.
May 10, 2008

5:50 p.m.

Suggest removal

mikeyg writes:

cc,

YOU have absolutely no facts to back up any of your comments. There is a difference between Neville Chamberlain appeasement national security like you and Barack Hussein Obama advocate and Winston Churchill recognition, preparation and action like GWB implemented.

Dangerous incompetent reactionary defense is not an option against a determined suicidal divinely inspired foe with whom negotiation is merely a tactic used to gain strategic advantage. It is why the pacifist koom-baya defense policy of most liberals and Democrats is a suicidal path for this nation, and why Barack Hussein Obama will lose this November.
May 10, 2008

7:28 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

i'll ask again in the hope that mikey will answer:

"what about starting an unnecessary war that has made us weaker and less safe while strengthening our enemies makes you believe that the republicans are "strong" on national security?"
May 10, 2008

7:41 p.m.

Suggest removal

mikeyg writes:

"unnecessary war", "made us weaker and less safe"

jay, this is your unsubstantiated ignorant claim, oft repeated in liberal circles to the extent that you believe it because all your leftist friends have said it so many times, but based on the opinion of weak, anti-military, anti-American, yellow-bellied, surrender first, appeasement, hug-an-islamofacist-terrorist types like you and Barack Hussein Obama.

I've given links to outside sources time after time already, all you've done is repeat your idiotic chant begging me to answer a question posited from a false claim. Since all you kool-aid drinking socialists can do is parrot what your marxist leaders tell you say, somehow believing because you've said it to yourselves enough times it now carries the weight of truth outside your echo chamber I give you no credibility. You would commit mass-suicide for your messianic leaders like Jim Jones and Barack Hussein Obama. But conservatives and centrists, including myself, won't follow you there. BHO will lose in November for this very reason.
May 10, 2008

7:47 p.m.

Suggest removal

compassionatecitizen writes:

mikeyg,

Apparantly you and GWB disagree with the sum total of our Intelligence Services.
A case, possibly of GWB "propelling the propaganda" (a GWB quote from one of his fundraising speeches). If you read the entire article, GWB tries to put his spin on it, propelling the propaganda again but our Intelligence Agencies disagree with him!

Iraq has made us Less Safe, according to the National Intelligence Estimate:
Spy Agencies Say Iraq War Hurting U.S. Terror Fight

By Karen DeYoung
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, September 24, 2006; A01

The war in Iraq has become a primary recruitment vehicle for violent Islamic extremists, motivating a new generation of potential terrorists around the world whose numbers may be increasing faster than the United States and its allies can reduce the threat, U.S. intelligence analysts have concluded.
A 30-page National Intelligence Estimate completed in April cites the "centrality" of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, and the insurgency that has followed, as the leading inspiration for new Islamic extremist networks and cells that are united by little more than an anti-Western agenda. It concludes that, rather than contributing to eventual victory in the global counterterrorism struggle, the situation in Iraq has worsened the U.S. position, according to officials familiar with the classified document.
"It's a very candid assessment," one intelligence official said yesterday of the estimate, the first formal examination of global terrorist trends written by the National Intelligence Council since the March 2003 invasion. "It's stating the obvious."
May 10, 2008

7:59 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

we'll take out the "unnecessary" adjective with which you seem so unwilling to come to terms for the moment, mikeyg, and focus on "made us less safe while strengthening our enemies".

do you believe starting a war that did this is the equivalent of being "strong" on national security?
May 11, 2008

11:40 a.m.

Suggest removal

mikeyg writes:

You libs are morons. You project your cowardice on our brave men and women who serve to defend this nation against all enemies and evil intolerant megalomaniacs. But don't worry, they've taken an oath to protect and defend us all, even the fools who spout off with limp-wristed admonishments of their mission.

I took that oath and served proudly. Now I serve other veterans proudly. Fortunately they are cut from a different cloth than froward, jay and cc - and Barack Hussein Obama. They actually believe in this nation - as she is today, understand the strategic importance of what they are doing in the Middle East and voluntarily take on all the risks and make the sacrifices to protect her.

The sheepdogs will protect even the weakest sheep in the flock. You libs today are by far the weakest sheep in the flock that is America. Prior to Eugene McCarthy liberals still had a spine in this nation and would be just as tenacious in defending her. Since then liberals have had a yellow streak a mile wide running down their backs. And Barack Hussein Obama is a part of that legacy. It is why he'll lose as badly as McCarthy this November DESPITE the huge advantage Dems have genericaly this year. Americans don't elect surrender monkeys to Commander in Chief.
May 11, 2008

11:52 a.m.

Suggest removal

jimstaro writes:

Mike, as a 'Nam Vet, '70-'71, last year of my 4yr. hitch, I'd suggest to you that you seek out abit of counseling.

It would help in the problems you're having with your anger, and probably hatred, as well as the others you've carried over these years.

You shouldn't have kept it bottled up inside yourself so long.

And don't come back with saying you haven't had any problems, you're a classic case, read between your own lines!!
May 11, 2008

1:24 p.m.

Suggest removal

mikeyg writes:

To the "immoral war" claim: What was moral about letting a tyrant who gassed his own people, launched wars of agression against his neighbors, drained the marshes of the Sh'ite people who had lived in SE Iraq for millenia, who shot missiles at US pilots enforcing the terms of the Gulf War cease fire, attempted to assassinate a US president, paid $25,000 to the surviving families of murderous palestinian fanatics who blew themselves up at weddings, nightclubs and school buses in Israel in hopes of killing hundreds of innocent women and children, harbored Al-Qaida terrorists like al-Zarqawi BEFORE we invaded, who was trying to buy yellow-cake uranium (despite the proven lies of Joe Wilson to the contrary), and who had the UN's Kofi Annan, France's Chirac, Germany's Schroeder on his payroll to evade world economic sanctions?

Oh, yeah, we should have waited for a morally corrupt UN to do something. Just like waiting for them to do something about the Khmer Rouge, Rwanda, Darfur, Zimbabwe, Burma has saved millions of lives and made the world a better place, huh?

Oh, to jim, you're a liar about your service and there's no need to respond further to your ridiculous post.
May 11, 2008

4:18 p.m.

Suggest removal

mrfxx writes:

I love that someone who thinks the "war of choice" with Iraq, started by an administration which had (note HAD) one member who could actually prove honorable service (Colin Powell - Cheney had 5, count 'em 5, exemptions until he "aged out" and magically, any paperwork about W's service - which is subject to FOIA has "disappeared") has the audacity to claim that another poster is lying about his service, while he (mikeyg) gets to claim he has 2 purple hearts without any proof. I don't see where he INSISTED that every child in his family of draft age sign up to serve.

I guess when a former member of the military sees the war with Iraq for what it is - a smear on the US - that veteran must be a liar.

Perhaps mikeyg is unaware that the US
1) helped Saddam Hussein get in power & stay there when it benefitted the US
2) sold the Iraq weapons of mass destruction to use on Iran
3) assured Hussein when he caught Kuwait slant drilling into Iraqi oil fields that it was none of the US's business - until Maggie Thatcher pulled "Daddy" Bush aside & reminded him that BP was Kuwait; meanwhile, during Desert Storm, the US turned a blind eye to Turkey's invasion of Iraq from the north
4) chose to leave him in power under "Daddy" Bush - who knew that while Hussein was a terrible vicious despot, the "upside" to that was that terrorists would never get a foothold in that country (or perhaps mikeyg believes that despots are willing to "share the power").

As far as the rest of you who think that PTSD is an "imaginary disease", I suspect none of you have had to face frontline duty for multiple trips (nor have your children or grandchildren), nor have you had service doctors choose to modify your fitness for combat duty (well documented in other articles) because the military is understaffed for this war. While this article is only dealing with suicides, other signs of mental illness include the zooming rates of spousal abuse by the returning members of the military - but heck, I guess the wives & kids are imagining that too.

I believe if this "war on terror" is a serious as the warmongers would have us believe, the draft would have been reinstated - this time including the girls (can you imagine Bush's little darlings having to serve), and there would have been tax increases to pay for it, instead of tax cuts. Would you be so "rah rah" if your kids/grandkids had to go? Would you be so "rah rah" if it affected your personal "bottom line"?
May 11, 2008

4:38 p.m.

Suggest removal

mikeyg writes:

mrsfxx, unimaginative, uninsightful, misinformed liberal echo chamber drivel that masks your cowardice and hate for this country and all the good she stands for, and has always stood for in the world. We have another Rev. Jeremiah Wright disciple here. Barack Hussein Obama will not be president precisely because of your kind of self-loathing rants - it does not resonate in middle America. Paul Begala was dead on when he said presidents don't get elected by just African-Americans and eggheads (like you, mrsfxx).
May 11, 2008

5:58 p.m.

Suggest removal

mikeyg writes:

Back to my original post, I pointed out that military/veteran suicide rates are no different than the population at large, and that omitting that important perspective information revealed the writer's agenda in this speakout - a liberal echo chamber that "constantly tries to denegrate our military and make them out to be poor victims of 'The Republican War Machine'", as I wrote.

All of the posts from the liberals make my case for me. They've all spit out their propaganda drivel that tries to "pity the poor soldier who's been lied to used and abused by GWB and greedy, heartless neocons led by corporate war profiteers".

As I stated, I am a vet and work with vets every single day. Vets who have given everything and made sacrifices a liberal in 2008 would never dream of making for this nation led by "warmongers", suffering from a "birth defect", and one that they've "never been proud of" until the candidacy of Obama.

And most all of these vets with prosthetic limbs, confined to wheel chairs, suffering from traumatic brain injuries and PTSD would do it all over again. They don't want pity, they want respect and to be supported in completing their mission successfully. They refuse to be a generation of warriors who left their mission with their tail between their legs, retreating under a flag of surrender to an emboldened enemy who will undoubtably follow them home.

They did not make sacrifices that will impact the rest of their lives, and watch their friends die in their arms so some egghead, cowardly foolish liberals can pity them for being "misled into an unjust, immoral war" that they volunteered to fight because they believed in the righteousness and necessity of it.
May 11, 2008

6:21 p.m.

Suggest removal

MrPeabody writes:

I'm going to avoid the sniping in the above posts to address Dobbs' opinion piece. While no doubt written from an anti-war perspective it does bring home one point that I believe is worth addressing.

No doubt those who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan are suffering mentally. While here in Colorado, the civilian mental health services and institutions have had their funding cut over the years and are abysmal, the situation in our VA hospitals regarding medical treatment for our vets and especially mental health treatment is terrible to non-existent.

Nationalized healthcare, anybody? This is but a glimpse of what it might look like.
May 11, 2008

8:25 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

couple of things that i think mikey is still confused about. you see we asked a fairly inconvenient question and instead of answering it, he went on the typical right wing rant. let's just pull out a couple of the blatant rushian talking points and see if we can shed some light on the situation for our reality-challenged friend.

"You project your cowardice on our brave men and women who serve to defend this nation against all enemies"

opposition to the republican policies that have unnecessarily gotten us into this mess has nothing to do with the troops. nothing. well...that's not really the case. it is sad that some don't support the troops enough not to send them needlessly into the sandbox while refusing to give them the resources they need for success.

"They actually believe in this nation - as she is today, understand the strategic importance of what they are doing in the Middle East and voluntarily take on all the risks and make the sacrifices to protect her."

yet another strawman argument from the far right implying that those who don't agree with the republican policies regarding the middle east don't "believe in this nation" and don't "understand the strategic importance of what 'they' are doing in the Middle East...etc...etc...etc..."

"You libs today are by far the weakest sheep in the flock that is America."

i laughed when i read this. seriously. who rights like this out of junior high school? you are more than welcome to your opinion....but why don't you tell us why you believe this?

"Americans don't elect surrender monkeys to Commander in Chief."

wow

rush would be proud

mikeyg then goes on to fumble around with some rationalizations for iraq like a 7th grader with his first shot at removing a bra...but just can't quite make the case for 2nd base.
May 11, 2008

11:16 p.m.

Suggest removal

mikeyg writes:

Typical call everyone dumb, 7th grade, etc. blah blah I'd expect from a liberal who's snob view of middle America permeates his thinking. "Let them eat Arugula while they cling to guns and God" is your battle cry.

Again, the sheepdogs who make up our voluntary military will protect the weekest sheep in the flock that liberals are today from the wolves who would otherwise do harm unto them. No thanks or appreciation is required, but you're welcome anyhow.
May 12, 2008

12:03 a.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

mikey who do you think is being "defended" by the war in iraq?
May 12, 2008

10:43 a.m.

Suggest removal

OhBrother writes:

why does it make you so angry when people question things and don't blindly follow along? Why wouldn't any American begin to ask "why" about the Iraq situation currently? PTSD is real, it's not some fake disease made up to scare people, soilders suffer from this and to dismiss it is a slap in the face. Maybe the war is making things allllllll better over in Iraq from your prespective, but plenty of people don't agree.
May 12, 2008

2:06 p.m.

Suggest removal

dillard writes:

An Army Surgeon once said, "There are two rules of war. Rule #1 is people die. Rule #2 is you can't change rule #1.
Some people seem to be not affected by killing,some even seem to enjoy it. Some go crazy after killing and witnessing the horrors of battle. Just because some people oppose war does not make them cowards. It seems as if this war has driven a lot of Americans insane. If we withdraw from Iraq and those people kill each other by the millions what really changes. You can not reason with people who believe they will be rewarded with 72 virgins when they kill.
May 13, 2008

9:12 a.m.

Suggest removal

kathyM writes:

The cases of veteran suicide, homelessness, violence, etc. are the ones that make the news. The cases that don't make the news are vets who look normal on the outside but use alcohol and/or drugs to quell the hell inside. Years later, their agony starts to show itself via heart attack, stroke, Alzheimer's, and a host of other ailments. Not spectacular or newsworthy, but real. And I'm sure mikeyg works with many of these guys, too.
May 13, 2008

11:55 a.m.

Suggest removal

mikeyg writes:

Believe it or not, kathym, most people are strong and resilient. People who have endured major hardships, stresses, agonies and hells on earth are capable of bouncing back and living normal lives. In fact, the overwhelming majority do.

The issues you describe happen across all spectrums of human existence and careers. From the corporate CEO who works 80 hour weeks, lives in hotel rooms and meets his kids for the first time when he's 70 and retired, to the housewife of an alcholic construction worker to police officers who engage the worst of human scum daily, to the RMN print room machine operator who has constant deadlines to fill while working with toxic chemicals, all of these people, everybody is exposed to stimuli in life that can manifest itself in substance abuse, heart attacks, stroke and a host of other ailments.

Um, kathym, life happens to everyone and either we have the tools to deal with it or we don't. It is not the government's role to take away all stress from the human experience, heaven forbid if it ever did try. Our veterans have chosen what stresses they are going to be exposed to. They have the tools, or are given the tools to deal with them. Some folks are constitutionally incapable of dealing, though. Suicide prevention is a real need, and as I said earlier, an obligation of the VA and DOD to our wounded warriors, outside and inside. Same thing for TBI and PTSD treatment.

But, again lost on you is that the rates of suicide are no different than in the general population as I posted at the beginning of this thread. The same thing goes for these other human suffering issues you bring up. Service to the nation's defense, which can involve some gruesome experiences, does not make them more damaged goods than CEO's, housewives, policemen and printers. They know what they sign up for. There is a self-selection process involved in a voluntary military. If they are week sheep like you who would crack at the very notion of fighting, violence and death, they don't enlist or become officers. It's that clear.

Liberals who would never lift a finger to fight for this nation, a nation they think suffers from a birth defect and that they've never been proud of, will never understand this, and project their cowardice on our soldiers. And liberals project how they would react, as wimpering woosies or pathological maniacs on how our brave soldiers should react. You're not cut from the same cloth. You dishonor our brave men and women and make their reintegration to normal life more difficult with your preconcieved stereotypes of what they are and how they deal with the stresses they've endured.
May 15, 2008

10:11 a.m.

Suggest removal

kellymcnulty123 writes:

In response to "Mike_In_Hartsel on May 10, 2008 at 6:27 a.m."

Actually, I wasn't going to say you were insensitive, but after reading the first few lines of your comments, I knew that you were a veteran. Attitudes like yours is what's currently killing my ex husband, a veteran of the Gulf War, slowly but surely. Frequently unemployed, anger management problems, physically and verbally abusive, alcoholic, periodontal disease from grinding his teeth so hard at night that it would wake me out of a dead sleep, chews his fingernails until they bleed, etc, etc. He's an obvious nervous wreck! The list of his problems goes on and on, he can see it, yet he evades it and refuses to seek help because of the tough guy mentality you guys perpetrate.

Do any of the characteristics I've described above sound heroic or courageous to you? His heroic and courageous actions in war are being tainted by his inability to lead a productive and happy life. As stated in the article, knowing when you need help, is a sign of strength. Strength is not drinking all the time and getting DUIs, yelling at and hitting your wife, losing your job every year or two, etc, etc.

I don't think there has been an increase in the number of people with psychological disorders...I think there's been in increase in them being propertly diagnosed. This type of psychological trauma has existed after every war since the first one ever fought, but thanks to medical advances and further understanding of the human mind and body, we are now able to better understand what's going on in our heads.

As a former sufferer of PTSD, after I was robbed in my own home, I certainly understand a teeny, tiny bit of what these men, and probably yourself, felt and are feeling. Although my case paled in comparison, I'm sure.

At any rate, the government (which I am no fan of) is so effective at teaching our soldiers how kill and win wars, I just wish they were equally effective at teaching these guys how to live and win in life.

"Several state National Guard units have pilot programs for "reintegration." They invite Guardsmen returned from war and their families to come for counseling and bonding 30, 60 and 90 days after returning home." They shouldn't be INVITED, it should be a mandatory condition for being discharged.

And as an aside that may not seem relevant, but very much is, all soldiers, and all humans for that matter, should read Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand. Having an appropriate philosophy for living helps in every aspect of life...especially when dealing with hard times. Having an inappropriate philosophy for living is what causes most problems in our society, much less our government. In fact, bad philosophy is exactly what causes terrorist-style behavior and caused our country to fight this altruistic war to begin with.
May 17, 2008

9:01 a.m.

Suggest removal

gregdobbs1 writes:

Everything written up above is what columns are meant to provoke: debate. Thank goodness we have the freedom to do it openly. What's more, there are two good sides to most every story, which is why there is some sense in every comment above. But as the writer of the column being attacked and defended, let me point out two things. First, about those suicide statistics: before 2003, the rate of suicides among vets was lower than that of the general population. There are several good reasons for this, including the high rate of discipline in the military and the security of longterm employment. Now, the suicide rate has spiked so that it matches the population of the nation as a whole, which is a consequence, according to experts, of PTSD. Maybe if a few writers bothered to do their homework, they wouldn't base their arguments on incomplete information. Second, to those who think my perspective is anti-war: it is not anti-war, it is anti-neglect. Neither Mikey nor those of like mind would deny injured soldiers, Marines, or veterans all the treatment they need for physical injuries, but they would ignore a wounded mind. Mikey, as a journalist for 40 years I have been in eight wars--- from Beirut to Belfast to Afghanistan to Rhodesia to the Gulf War to Tehran and the Iran-Iraq war for good measure--- and have seen and done things, as you might have seen and done as well, that I have lived with perfectly well, but which make some men dysfunctional. That is the point. If they're not all as macho as you are, does that make them bad people, and does it mean they neither need nor deserve help? And if the Pentagon's own top psychiatrist tells me that in a war with multiple deployments and no safe haven, men and women are more prone to PTSD (or call it shell shock or anything else) than in previous wars, would you contradict that conclusion? You and yours might have done great service for our nation in the past, Mikey, but nowadays you do it a disservice by perpetuating the very kinds of problems the military itself, by its own reckoning, is trying to overcome. Or maybe you're just smarter than the people you profess to worship.
Greg Dobbs

Home › Opinion › Speakout

GUEST COLUMN: The invisible wounds of war

By Greg Dobbs, Special to the Rocky

Published May 10, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.

More Speakout

Share

Comments

Featured

Columns & Blogs