War and PTSD.

hermitwin

Is it inevitable that 1/3 soldiers have PTSD?

Straight_Man

I think perhaps as awful as war is, yes.

jll

What really struck me was when the Sec for Vet Affairs
said that on average, 18 veterans commit suicide everyday.

Dakini

I think it's deplorable that the Vet Admin doesn't provide PTSD treatment for vets. There's a very quick and effective treatment (that the Vet Admin tested to great success with Viet Nam war vets back in the 70's) that wouldn't be costly. We should all write our representatives in Congress to demand adequate funding to address this problem.

Simonthepilgrim

@Dakini: Do you mean Richard Bandler's 20 minute therapy?

how

Being sent off to bear witness to the atrocities of a war machine.
Perhaps the normal ones are the 2/3rds with PTSD.

vinlyn

I wonder why so much more PTSD now than in WWII.

robot

vinlyn said:

I wonder why so much more PTSD now than in WWII.

A quick scan of the web tells the story. Here's one.
http://progressivehistorians.wordpress.com/2007/10/06/ptsd-and-the-myth-of-ww-ii/

ThailandTom

vinlyn said:

I wonder why so much more PTSD now than in WWII.

I am only guessing but maybe because it was not recognized as much in the medical field?

When my friend went to rehab about 1/3 of the people there were not there for drugs but because they had left the armed forces and could not hack reality and life. Such things can destroy a person. My own dad was in the armed forces for 6 years in the tank regiment and he says at this point in time you have to be pretty stupid to join up considering what's going on.

vinlyn

I'm not sure that really answers the question.

I knew so many vets that were friends of my father. I only knew one who probably had what we would call today PTSD...my own uncle.

But when you consider that many WWII vets were in battlefield conditions -- without real leave -- for the duration of WWII...well, I still don't think it's the same.

ThailandTom

No I am sure WWII was probably a lot more horrific. I don;t know if it is medical science accepting more and more of what has happened to thee people or that people who before just had 'issues' are now branded with a disorder.

Glow

vinlyn said:

I wonder why so much more PTSD now than in WWII.

A lot of the children of that generation I've met attest otherwise. I've met many who seem to have less than idyllic remembrances of their fathers. Many of these guys were abusive to their wives and children or chronic alcoholics. (The latter being pretty well-documented -- I remember reading about substance abuse among WWII/Korean War veterans as a huge public health issue from the 1950s through the 1990s; see here and here for what the contemporary medical system was dealing with.)

The scars of that war might have been mediated somewhat by the sense that the US was justified in its engagement in WWII. Veterans of that war were regarded and treated better than those of any subsequent war, and came home to a mostly grateful and economically booming nation (GI Bill, etc.). We can't really say the same for the prospects of those coming home from Iraq and Afghanistan today.

vinlyn

I can buy the alcoholism angle.

poptart

Perhaps the reason for war is a factor. There's a difference between fighting a war for issues you believe in, like protecting your home and liberty, and going off to a foreign country you never even heard of to blast its inhabitants to bits and take its resources.

But even with good reason, men were always traumatised by war. Witness shell shock in WW1. But the effects were kept quiet. Until recently it was considered unmanly (ie. weak and cowardly) to admit to this trauma, and some still think that way.

vinlyn

poptart said:

Perhaps the reason for war is a factor. There's a difference between fighting a war for issues you believe in, like protecting your home and liberty, and going off to a foreign country you never even heard of to blast its inhabitants to bits and take its resources.

But even with good reason, men were always traumatised by war. Witness shell shock in WW1. But the effects were kept quiet. Until recently it was considered unmanly (ie. weak and cowardly) to admit to this trauma, and some still think that way.

Yes, I think that is very true -- how much do you believe in the cause. Although now you have the difference between a war (WWII, the Korean War, and the Vietnam War) when much of the military was made up of draftees, as opposed to now when it is all-volunteer.

I don't think the effects on men in WWI were kept quiet at all. It's a topic that was covered very well in the media of the day, including fiction and movies (e.g., "Random Harvest"). And, with no definitive treatments, a problem that was there for everyone to see for the life of many individuals.

poptart

vinlyn said:

I don't think the effects on men in WWI were kept quiet at all. It's a topic that was covered very well in the media of the day, including fiction and movies (e.g., "Random Harvest").

It took years for people, including the authorities, to accept the effects of trauma on soldiers in WW1. Many accused of "cowardice" were court marshalled and even shot when they were clearly suffering from shell shock. But the British army banned the use of the term, even in a medical context, as late as 1917.

I haven't heard of the novel you mention but I note it was not published until 1941, twenty-three years after WW1 ended.

vinlyn

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwone/shellshock_01.shtml

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/FWWshellshock.htm

http://www.k-state.edu/english/westmank/regeneration/shellshock.heck.html

And perhaps the best summary of the recognition of the malady: http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/library/randrep/marlowe_paper/mr1018_11_ch5.html

vinlyn

The reason that the novel was written in 1941 was because of WWII. As the above references note, shell-shock was well recognized during WWI.

vinlyn

Actual footage of shell shock victims in a British military hospital:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2229655/Disturbing-Pathe-footage-World-War-One-reveals-devastating-effects-shell-shock-soldiers-treated-pioneering-Devon-hospital.html

JohnG

I have discovered that PTSD is the horror side of being a warrior. In battle, the solider learns that there's always someone who has his/her back, no matter what. This is a binder of the battle, but it also binds them to a point that only they know what they had become. In world war II, Korea, Vietnam, and all those in between, the nature of battle stayed the same, but the methods of carnage changed; as is the world of information.

In World War II, Korea, and Vietnam the information of what had transpired on the battle field was highly censored; and the world of the 'shell shocked' was a sign of moral weakness. Today, we see the battle and suffering as it happens; although the military keeps the secrecy oath, how can a solider not suffer?

In battle, the solider meets a time when all he/she was taught, and believed in; the morality of what we learned meets the opposite of these; and part of them just wants to hold onto that before time; but another part battles, the part of what they have seen, the reality, of what they saw and partook in. In many instances it's 'we' who have no idea, and the 'we' who want to see the glories of battle like the way it was portrayed in Hollywood, during the great studio period. So, who else to understand then another solider.

In battle, the bond is set, and a new person evolves; but then they return, unable to resolve being back in supposed 'normality' issues arise. War 'is' hell, but how does one tell their families who have not experienced what they did? So, the isolation begins, sometimes to protect them, the idea that no one outside of the warrior will understand. And then that battle grows between the want of the normalcy and happiness of the past pre-military life, but the part that has seen and done battles too. Until the solider reconciles that what he/she has done or saw is now part of themselves, And 'we' reach out, without intruding, and understand war is death, has been death, and will always be death, the solider will suffer quietly, and some will choose to end that pain, by ending their life.

It's time patriotism and reality of war, take there true separation in life.

One thing we can do, is not intrude, not demand to know what they did; be there for them, tell them, if you didn't fight, what you truly understand, and not some painted up prose. But, be there for them, and listen, without judgment! Many will want this, remember that fight between their souls? Want to be judged, to be damnd, to be something with finality. Don't! Listen with your souls, and minds. And be prepared to feel what hell truly is.

Cinorjer

Another factor that is thought to make a big difference is that in WWII and earlier wars, the average age of the soldier was older than Vietnam and later engagements. Young people still enlisted and fought of course, but they had many more older, more experienced men around them.

JohnG

Very true Cinorjer, but, there was also a vast clamp on what was told to the public here at home. When those soldiers came home, they came home to fanfare, and such, but they also came home to a world that heard very little of the hell they faced.

When they came home they came home to a world war that was portrayed by John Wayne, and such; PTSD was there as well, just not told. When they were researching Saving Private Ryan, they had a hard time gaining the trust of the veterans who were still alive. It took a lot of convincing that this movie wasn't going to be another John Wayne promo.

Tosh

I've got an old army pal, currently staying in a charity run house suffering with PTSD. He has two young kids too. It's a very sad situation. Another friend I had who suffered with PTSD scraped up bodies with a shovel and bagged them during the aftermath of Gulf War 1.

And a friend of mine's son served as a Warrior chain gunner in Gulf War 2. He was about 21 years old at the time and killed between 10 and 15 people. Since then he's left the army, got a girl pregnant and abandoned them, can't keep a job and has been caught drunk driving twice. He nearly went to prison the second time but his war record helped him out.

His father reckons he's an alcoholic. He probably is. He might've been an alcoholic even if he didn't go to war?

My ex wife suspected that my drinking was because of my service (Northern Ireland, Gulf War, Bosnia and Kosovo), but I don't think I've been affected by it. I have had periods of time running the same scenario over and over and over in my head, asking myself if there was anything I could've done, or could've done better; and that kind of thing - but I suspect this is normal for anyone who has been in a traumatic incident. And I used alcohol to help me sleep; that's also very common for people with PTSD.

But even before I joined the army I drank to excess.

PTSD is a very complex area.

If anyone is interested, a new psychiatric technique in treating PTSD is something called 'memory deletion' (the name is a misnomer), which I think is 'Buddhist' in a way. Our problems aren't the actual memories of incidents we've experienced, but our relationship (our emotional content) attached to those incidents.