This is *not* inevitable in a time for war. It should never be dismissed as a mere artifact of combat. One or two cases of non-suicidal self-injury may arise among military on duty; but, any more, and it is signal of great disturbance and distress - and should be considered as such.

for = of

oops

This is very sad but not at all surprising. I read an article (on msnbc I think but it could've been here) about soldier with PTS being forced to go back into combat (and during their treatment being forced to live next to gun ranges so that they hear shots 24/7 while they're trying to recover!) The fact of the matter is there aren't enough soldiers right now so those unlucky enough to already be under contract are paying the price with extended tours and sub-par psychiatric help. The higher ups are enforcing policies that are hurting their own.

We've got a record number of soldiers committing suicide, soldiers paying people to shoot them or jumping off roofs to not go back, nearly 20% of the troops in Afghanistan and Iraq are on anti-depressants or sleeping pills, and we're sending people back to the warzone for two or three tours -- how much longer are we going to let this go on? We are putting our troops through hell yet most Americans can't say why the administration keeps us in Iraq.

Aside from the obvious tragedy here this is also one of the primary reasons why the future of war fair will rely heavily on robotics. Can anyone say Terminator, Robo Cop, and Iron Man.

I would never want to minimize anyone's anguish, but the Newsweek article cites three cases, and refers to a "rising trend". Then they admit that "we just don't have good, hard data on it."

The suicide rates are given in absolute numbers, not as a percentage of the active duty military population. I would like to know how the suicide rate per thousand, for instance, compares to that of the regular population. Also, the original source being cited on this item is the Huff Poo--not the most objective! It reads: "The 115 confirmed suicides among active-duty soldiers and National Guard and Reserve troops who had been activated amounted to a rate of 18.8 per 100,000 troops _ the highest since the Army began keeping records in 1980." IIRC, there haven't been a lot of major military actions since 1980, so there isn't a good pool of data to compare.

Doing a quick search, a USA Today article dated 02/08/07 quotes the police suicide rate as 18 per 100,000. A Science Daily article dated 09/08/07 says the teen (10- to 24-year-olds) suicide rate increased by 8% from 2003 to 2004, 50 7.32 per 100,000. Of this group, the highest rate was among 14- to 19-year old males, with a rate of 12.65 per 100,000.

This is a story that deserves investigation. However, better data is definitely needed. If there's a problem, we should determine what is causing it. What if it is primarily that the soldiers do not feel supported by the American public--they don't have the same sense of "mission" as the soldiers of WWII, for instance--and are therefore conflicted?

Oops, that third paragraph should read "...the teen (10- to 24-year-olds) suicide rate increased by 8% from 2003 to 2004, to 7.32 per 100,000."

This is totally tragic! A co-worker of mine's brother-in-law shot and killed himself rather than return for another tour in Iraq. It just makes me feel sick....I think you raise some good points, lainetm. Let's hope that as they collect more data, more can be done for these soldiers!

I understand your point Lainetm, but I'm not sure we should wait on determining if there's a huge problem the way some people would have us wait until global warming is absolutely proved. There really shouldn't be an acceptable number of suicides and self-mutilations in an all-volunteer military.

This year:

Data contained in the Army’s fifth Mental Health Advisory Team report indicate that, according to an anonymous survey of U.S. troops taken last fall, about 12% of combat troops in Iraq and 17% of those in Afghanistan are taking prescription antidepressants or sleeping pills to help them cope.

The Army hasn’t consistently asked about prescription-drug use... given the traditional stigma associated with soldiers seeking mental help, the survey, released in March, probably underestimates antidepressant use. But if the Army numbers reflect those of other services — the Army has by far the most troops deployed to the war zones — about 20,000 troops in Afghanistan and Iraq were on such medications last fall. The Army estimates that authorized drug use splits roughly fifty-fifty between troops taking antidepressants — largely the class of drugs that includes Prozac and Zoloft — and those taking prescription sleeping pills like Ambien.

Early 2007
From a suicide rate of 9.8 per 100,000 active-duty soldiers in 2001 -- the lowest rate on record -- the Army reached an all-time high of 17.5 suicides per 100,000 active-duty soldiers in 2006.

This year:
Last year, 121 soldiers took their own lives, nearly 20 percent more than in 2006.

At the same time, the number of attempted suicides or self-inflicted injuries in the Army has jumped sixfold since the Iraq war began. Last year, about 2,100 soldiers injured themselves or attempted suicide, compared with about 350 in 2002, according to the U.S. Army Medical Command Suicide Prevention Action Plan.

From a CBS news report in 2004:
The issue of suicides so worried the military that the Army sent an assessment team to Iraq late last year to see if anything more could be done to prevent troops from killing themselves. The Army also began offering more counseling to returning troops after several soldiers at Fort Bragg, N.C., killed their wives and themselves after returning home from the war.

"they don't have the same sense of "mission" as the soldiers of WWII, for instance--and are therefore conflicted?"

I agree with this 100% the difference is invading a country because they in some way shape or form assaulted us and invading a country because we feel they just need to be dealt with. I would have been totally behind G. Bush if he had sent everything we had into Afghanistan and whipped the mountain sides with Al Qaeda’s @$$€$.

Our troops would have had conviction of the heart because they would know that they are going after the people behind an attack on America, an organization behind taking away the lives of Americans. In stead what do we do? We spend years and thousands of lives cleaning up after some clown dictator who was no threat beyond his own boarders and not responsible for 9/11. This psychology plays a huge part in a soldier’s constitution and begins to wear on their loyalty to the oath and this has tragically ended in some taking their own lives or seriously injuring themselves.

I think we can all agree that our government has not, does not, take care of our veterans.

lexi,

Agreed. We've had more than a few "suicide by cop" issues here due to vets not getting proper care after returning "home."

We have been there for FAR too long... it's time to bring our men and women in uniform home!

I'm just going to say this. You want the same government that doesn't take care of our troops to be in charge of taking care of us?!?! Are you guys stuck on stupid?

Ok, rant over.

You ever here of change UnDave. Things change. If our gov. was that stagnet there wouldn't be a point in having one.

I've heard of change, but this has been a problem for decades, not just the last 8 years.

My what faith you have. Don't give up UnDave, don't give up.

But it's been the past 8 years that have seen the mobilization of troops to a possibly illegal, definitely poorly planned, wildly expensive war while a second war was underway, by the same administration and republican congress that complains that spending on veterans benefits is too expensive.

I dont know how i would feel if a relative of mine hurt themselves in some dumb way just so they wouldnt go back to serving out their duties. pity>embarrassment>sadness> all of the above?

"they don't have the same sense of "mission" as the soldiers of WWII"

You can, in big part, thank the media for that when they constantly tell our troops that the war is illegal, everything they are doing is useless, most of the country doesn't beleive in their mission, and never report any of the GOOD things that are happening.

I mean really, are we so myopic as to think that troops overseas don't hear that stuff?

Hey cabaker you just made me look up a work. MYOPIC

Well the news is news cabaker we can't have important news stories be ignored. I agree that bad news is a moral killer whether you're a citizen or soldier.

In my opinion since being in the military does nullify certain rights and privileges and one is no longer a citizen in the traditional sense while on active duty the powers that be have every right to ban news broadcasts and control internet reception if that's what it takes to keep moral from falling.

hypno - i know a lot of the news they get over there is fox news for obvious reasons.

and im certainly not arguing that news shouldn't be reporting the facts, but they facts on BOTH sides should be reported and the good stories should be reported too.

"You can, in big part, thank the media for that when they constantly tell our troops that the war is illegal, everything they are doing is useless, most of the country doesn't beleive in their mission, and never report any of the GOOD things that are happening."

Try to imagine what it is like to truly believe that the war is illegal - it is very hard to support anyone on mission that involves death that you believe is wrong. I'm very sorry, I know that makes people feel bad (even in my own family), but the thought of the deaths on both side in an illegal war makes me very sad.
I will support any soldier who says 'I don't want to go back (or go)', 'I believe it is illegal and I believe it is wrong for me to take part'... but other people suggest that those soldiers are cowards or worse (remember the recent thread here.)
What can be done?

Hey hypno - Since you looked it up, would you share what Myopic means?

This will sound harsh I know, but every time you talk about the good things going on in Iraq I think of someone breaking into a house, killing the family but fixing the plumbing on the way out.
It isn't good enough to justify the pain.

This will sound harsh I know, but every time you talk about the good things going on in Iraq I think of someone breaking into a house, killing the family but fixing the plumbing on the way out.
It isn't good enough to justify the pain.

WE can argue the "legalities" of this war all you want, but that isn't the point. The point cab was trying to make is the media has painted this as an all gloom and doom campaign. Our soldiers are dying for no reason, and the people over there hate us (sounds a lot like Vietnam, without the "babykiller" stamp). These references to Iraq aren't true.

As a soldier, your job is to go where ordered, regardless of your personal beliefs. If you don't like that, don't sign up.

You can think about any war like that Stephley. As one general correctly put it, war is he77. Does that mean we shouldn't fix what has been broken? BTW, we aren't doing the majority of killing of civilians. You can thank Al-Qaida for that.

We've had this conversation before: soldiers do not give up their right to their personal beliefs - they are supposed to refuse any order that they believe is illegal.
What do you have to support the claim that al-Qaida is behind the majority of civilian deaths in Iraq? The U.S. government won't even officially count those deaths so how do you claim that?
The legalities of the war are important. Otherwise what was all the whining about Hitler moving into other countries? If it wasn't illegal what made it wrong and worth a world war? Should the German people of the time be satisfied if they supported their government because they didn't want to let down the soldiers? Or should they have spoken out and tried to stop what was happening?
Sadly, you cannot separate the two - you cannot have a war for the wrong reasons and make it okay.

Who is committing the terrorist attacks? Who is strapping bombs onto themselves, walking into a crowded area, and then detonating those bombs? It's not us.
As for Hitler, the "whining" was because this man wanted the world for himself. The reason Hitler attacked the other countries was for his own global conquest. Do you really think Bush is tryin to take over the world? The German people publically supported the attacks, because they had to. If they didn't, the SS would hunt them down and send them to a camp, where they would eventually be killed.

Are all the civilian deaths due to terrorist acts? How many civilians are killed by U.S. shots, mortars, missiles and bombs fired from above and allegedly targeting terrorists? Do you know where you can find estimates on that?
Can you tell a terrorist from anyone else from a plane or helicopter?
If you want to take over the world, it's illegal attack another country. But if you want to spread democracy, kill a leader you find offensive and/or want to control oil fields, it's legal to invade another country. Motive makes the difference?
And the Germans supported the war because otherwise they'd be killed (what history book is that from?). Did their soldiers know that they only had support from people under threat of death? Wouldn't that have affected their morale? Were the German people simply victims in the war then and not responsible for their government?

You know what's funny is that a lot of you criticizing these soldiers who hurt themselves have probably never experienced combat. So its really easy for you to say do you job as soldier or don't sign up. Being in the army is your job and if you are not passionate about what your doing, would you want to continue?