This statement disgusts me. I struggled immensely transitioning from combat to civilian life. Nobody helped until years later I got lucky and someone referred me to a preacher who was also a therapist. The VA threw pills at myself and my brothers. Some of them are dead now. Some took their own lives on purpose, others on accident living dangerously. Some have spent time in prison for turning violent. I count myself incredibly lucky that I didn't kill anyone and wind up in prison.

I'm so upset by your comment. It's so wrong. Killing people, getting killed, being constantly in threat of mortal danger, these things break our brains. We do not take care of our own the best we can. We do a shit job of it IMO.

Don't you guys ask yourself how come you are always at war? Why you have "generations of veterans", even though you have by far the most powerful military force to ever have existed?

There is no credible conventional threat to the US, and there is no unconventional one that can be mitigated by fighting a war.

Not participating in unnecessary wars would help the mental health of soldiers much more than therapy or whatever else.

Actually, I'm a veteran, son of a veteran, son of a son of a veteran, and we all served in between wars, so we're not exactly "always at war".

But all bullshit aside, why would you lay that kind of blame on the people who rolled the dice (choosing between enlisting and working at DQ to pay off their double-wide) and now have to go out and do the job, versus the people who are making a profit every time we shoot off a $200K TOW round? There are, like, half a dozen people in the Army who could raise their hand and say "let's have a war" and have it actually mean anything, but you're asking veterans why they fight wars.

When I say "you guys" I mean "Americans". All of you.

PS: What a weird thing to down vote this post -- it simply clarifies my initial message.

Second: Your idealism is compelling, yet you overstate the facilities available to the common citizen.

Third: Pointing the finger at 'Americans' and saying 'Why don't you quit fighting so much?' only serves to feed the narrative that Americans are war-hungry.

Case in point: there is not a single military battle being fought on American soil. We, the 'war hungry' Americans, only commit to actionable defense of foreign states whose sovereignty is threatened by whatever forces are objectively creating a threat. We do so because we stand on the principle that it is better to stand up for the weak than it is to kowtow to dictators or totalitarian states. Now, we do this in a manner that is selective because geopolitics isn't a black and white decision matrix, and we have to pick battles that that we not only think we can win, but that won't serve to exacerbate the problems of totalitarianism and despotic rule.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_Unit...

We have the most powerful military ever because we've decided to take in the role of global hegemon. Now maybe that's a bad idea--but it's much bigger than just getting into specific wars that may or may not be particularly necessary. We live in a world order built on the American military maintaining the status quo.

One thing I keep in mind, thinking about this stuff is proximity to violence. The closer, the greater the damage. A cushioning factor, the people around you. When the group of people who serve are a small percentage of the population this becomes a big problem.

There are no modern rituals for warriors to re-integrate back into society. That's also problem that could be addressed. In 2015 and 2016 a new ritual, ^Vets Town Hall^ [0][1] started. Given a chance talking at a place like this at least, gives Veterans like yourself a voice. It also gives civilians, like myself a chance to hear you.

[0] https://moulton.house.gov/legislative-center/congressman-mou...

[1] http://www.vetstownhall.org/about

Based on being around and close to many people with mental health problems (and, to some degree, based on my personal experience), a major problem is transitioning back into society after prolonged periods of 'problems' and/or therapy. Quite a number of them struggled for years to get back into some kind of 'normal' life, if they managed to do so at all.

In a few cases I've even wondered if they'd been better off not being treated and labeled and instead figuring out over time how to cope or deal with their problems in better ways.

It's like breaking a leg and - after it being fixed and healed - being sent home without any physical therapy or instructions on how to regain muscle strength, and everyone expects you to just get up and walk like they do.

Now, and I can't emphasize this enough, I'm not saying that therapy is a bad idea. In many cases it's absolutely necessary and in most cases it's the best we can do what with our limited understanding of the mind and the society/reality we live in.

But still, I wonder if the success rate of treatment for things like depression, addiction, and many other problems would be significantly higher if we put more effort into the rehabilitation process, both as 'caregivers' and as a society.

It's difficult to raise this issue without getting into the problem of the hyper-individualistic nature of (western) society though, which I think lies at the root of this issue (and perhaps at the root of many mental health issues). Perhaps we've prized and institutionalized freedom of choice and self-sufficiency so much that we forgot how to deal with those who, for various reasons, are unable to.

No one disputes that there are major challenges to coming back to society from war, especially with TBI or otherwise. So nobody is making light of that.

The point here however is that the TBI/PTSD serviceman shouldn't be what comes to mind when people think "War Veteran." The majority of war veterans are not broken by it. We need to take care of those who were, but they shouldn't define the rest of us and it doesn't do those with disabilities a service for that to be the narrative.

Happy to talk offline if you're still looking for help, send me a note.

Trying to pit man against man, service against service? There's a concept that isn't understood enough. Respect, "Respect behind the wire". You'll find this in military circles because? [0]

[0] Why? In tribes, your survival may depend on someone else helping you ~ http://bigthink.com/videos/sebastian-junger-on-tribalism-and...

ISIS wants a global Islamic caliphate, along with a Caliph at its head and Sharia law. They want this in the US, Europe, and every other country on the planet. They do not negotiate, because they believe they carry out the will of an omnipotent deity. And most importantly, they will brutally slaughter anyone who stands in their way.

So, how do we defend our rights to a different way of life, against those who would kill us for it?

Oh, and a cursory glance at history would be educational. Pacifism is a great idea, until it isn't.

Observed as an apparition conjured in a vacuum, ISIS really looks like such a beast, that no one could have created it or prevented it, right?

It seems like such an alien organization, that it must have always existed, but we know that's not true.

But let's suspend disbelief, cast aside rational thought, grab a gun and do something, because something like this requires direct action before it's too late!

Not really. It's just smoke an mirrors.

The country was deliberately destroyed for no reason. Iraq has been transformed into the mutilated free fire zone it is, because there was a good excuse for it, at the time, and there might never have been a better chance like that, to get away with destroying Iraq like there was at that moment.

So now panic about ISIS, right?

Panic about the bad guys.

Let people initiate opportunistic wars in 2003, so we can panic about the results in 2016?

Doesn't something about that seem a little odd?

It's simple. Help people help themselves, help those who can't.

People with diseases often can't help themselves. Whether its caused by drugs, war, poverty, assault, cancer, whatever. Because they're sick. And people do all sorts of stupid things when they're sick.

So lets stop treating our vets like they need special treatment - good or bad.

Tough love and neglect is a suboptimal strategy for treating PTSD.

My bestie served, he was harmed; he was fine until he wasn't. He deserves whatever consideration we can offer.

I'm glad you and most others weren't harmed that way. Have some empathy for those not so fortunate.

There is truth to what you say. The biggest issue I see, isn't the story so much trauma, trauma and war are hand maidens in history, it's how main-stream western society is shielded from the military. There is no common experience. Period. That's the bigger story.

The author is C. J. Chivers, USMC (Capt. Retd.), so yeah, ^the fetish for war^ is strong. So strong, he had to quit for the sake of those around him. [0]

[0] http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a37838/end-of-war-1015/

We talk about this a lot and it's an odd topic.

On the one hand it's great that western countries have the luxury of having so few impacts from wars that many don't even know that the US still has 8,400 military personnel in Afghanistan.

On the other hand it makes the population really not give a shit about issues surrounding formal war or it's personal impacts, so they end up just letting politicians slide on stuff.

Soldiers are between truck drivers and lawyers. More tactile than, and similarly skilled as, most of them. The luxury of the first world is the population's ability to ignore dying soldiers.

All of the regions you mention have a long and storied history of brutal conquest and warfare that predate the invention of small arms. This is evidence against small arms being a causal factor.

The vast majority of the regime-caused deaths of the last hundred years are from starvation, not from combat. Again, evidence that small arms are not a prerequisite for mass suffering.

The country with the highest small arms concentration in the world by a factor of 50% is the US, which is also one of the richest countries in the world by any metric. This is evidence against small arms proliferation being a sufficient condition for conflict.

So while it's possible that small arms made the pre-existing conflicts in these regions worse, I don't see any strong evidence for it. If you take the Geneva perspective on things, it's a lot more humane to get shot than to e.g. die from an infected spear wound, so one can imagine how this modernization of warfare might even make it marginally less terrible. If you have any data that suggests that small arms definitively make these conflicts worse, I would like to hear it.

Relative, like standing at the side of the road instead of in it. One reason I never talk about stuff like this is ppl who intellectualise rather than show any understanding of emotional response.

As a vet myself, I suspect the percentages of officers who have trouble acclimating is markedly lower than that of enlisted.