> The odds are very low.

The odds are very high for post-9/11 veterans (and higher the more of their period of service is post-9/11 within that group), who are more likely to have been deployed and seen combat than veterans of earlier eras (both because of optempo and organizational changes that have increased the teeth to tail ratio of uniformed services as support functions have been moved to contracted support.)

There are ample actual studies of this, we don't need to rely on the “sample size” of competing anecdotal reports.

This discussion interested me enough to do some casual Googling. The US military's statistics from 2011 say that only 15% of service members are actually involved in combat roles; slightly over 1 in 7. See figure 2 and figure 4 here: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Improving-the-DoD's-To.... And, of course, not every service member who is in a combat role gets PTSD or injuries.

If you have current tooth-to-tail estimates, they'd be interesting to see.

It's hard to find any simple, clear, current figures, but this has a historical study for deployed units through Iraq 2005 (which clearly isn't exactly what we want), and it shows (in the counts that don't include contractors for Iraq 2005, so the ones that are actually addressing uniformed personnel and using the same standards as earlier figures) the highest tooth to tail ratio since WWII, as part of a late (relative to the whole period of study) reversal of what had for most of the post-WWII period been a trend of decreasing the tooth-to-tail ratio.

https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Portals/7/combat-studies-ins...

You do not have to be in a combat role to see combat, get PTSD, or get injured.

My nephews serve as examples. Their non-combat roles were heavy construction, setting up communication networks, and airplane mechanic. However all three actually saw combat. 2 wound up with PTSD. And one wound up seriously injured when the plane that was delivering him to a secret mission got shot down en route.

In fact according to some estimates, the prevalence of PTSD among veterans of the Iraq war exceeds the fraction who were supposedly in combat roles.

Anybody can "some estimate" anything. My guess is that they're using figures from the massive amount of fraudulent PTSD claims submitted to the VA.

PTSD is the easiest diagnosis to get through the VA, and thus it is rife with fraud. As a result, it is quite difficult to get anything approaching accurate or useful numbers for it.

Not everyone will develop PTSD. Of the ones that do, not all who develop it recognize it immediately. Of those, even fewer will seek treatment. Combat is not the only way to develop it. Some might only develop it after ruminating on events later on, or failing to adjust to civilian life. What's certain is that not treating PTSD can cause much bigger and more dangerous problems. And unless you're a doctor, I wouldn't throw 'fraud' around so easily.

It sounds like you're one of the ideal ones for your line of work, though; brains that are less susceptible to stress damage are rare. It's why not everyone is fit to become a police officer or give talks in front of big crowds. Others have an adrenaline sensitivity or a panic groove etched so deeply in their brains that they'll forget their names if you talk to them when they don't expect it.

I'm also assuming you entered the military voluntarily. There's a predisposition for certain brains to take on and thrive in certain careers. As a DWB friend of mine put it about the career mercs he treated, "They aren't psychopaths, just real mean sons of bitches."

You don't have to like people who aren't built as tough as you, but that doesn't mean they're faking.

I’m well acquainted with how ptsd works.

The vast majority of the people in the military are never exposed to anything at all. They do a job and they get paid for it. They’re no more likely to develop ptsd than the local grocer, plumber or electrician. Many of them are exactly a grocer, plumber, or electrician with a military ID card. They’re not “Mercs” any more than the local grocer...

Everyone on active duty today entered voluntarily as well.

No, they’re not.

I retired last year.

I deployed to Afghanistan multiple times.

I’m literally someone who experienced the life you’re trying to tell me about. Your studies are mostly bullshit written to drive an agenda.

> Your studies are mostly bullshit written to drive an agenda.

It could be that that's true of of a variety of scientific studies from diverse sources with no reason to have common agenda, or it could be that that's just true of your unsubstantiated pseudonymous anecdotal ranting in an internet discussion board.

Cite the studies and I'll be glad to explain to you why they don't say what you believe they do, or why their methodology is laughably incorrect.

Again, btdt. I don't need a think tank to write a paper to tell me how the military works.

I'm still waiting to see the studies that the odds are "very high" that us veterans have PTSD. Not holding my breath here, but you've made the claim based on your anecdotes and a claim that "ample actual studies exist", so I'd like to see it.