More military personnel suicides than have died in action

[5829]

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php? ... &aid=16916

A Sign of Empire Pathology
More US military personnel have taken their OWN lives than have died in action

By Finian Cunningham

Global Research, January 12, 2010
Gulf Daily News

Here is a shocking statistic that you won't hear in most western news media: over the past nine years, more US military personnel have taken their own lives than have died in action in either the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan. These are official figures from the US Department of Defence, yet somehow they have not been deemed newsworthy to report. Last year alone, more than 330 serving members of the US armed forces committed suicide - more than the 320 killed in Afghanistan and the 150 who fell in Iraq (see wsws.org).

Since 2001, when Washington launched its so-called war on terror, there has been a dramatic year-on-year increase in US military suicides, particularly in the army, which has borne the brunt of fighting abroad. Last year saw the highest total number since such records began in 1980. Prior to 2001, the suicide rate in the US military was lower than that for the general US population; now, it is nearly double the national average.

A growing number of these victims have been deployed in Iraq or Afghanistan. What these figures should tell us is that there is something fundamentally deranged about Washington's "war on terror" - which is probably why western news media prefer to ignore the issue. How damning is it about such military campaigns that the number of US soldiers who take their own lives outnumber those killed by enemy combatants.

What is even more disturbing is that the official figures only count victims of suicide among serving personnel. Not included are the many more veterans - officially classed a civilians - who take their own lives.

Most likely, these deaths are reported in some small-town newspaper in "a brief" news item with no context or background as to what drove these individuals to take their own lives. It is estimated that the suicide rate among veterans demobbed from fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq is as high as four times the national average. The US Department of Veteran Affairs calculates that over 6,000 former service personnel commit suicide every year.

Many of these men have come home to a country they have fought for only to find no jobs, their homes repossessed by banks that have enjoyed trillion-dollar bailouts and broken relationships.

Meanwhile, President Obama - the erstwhile peace candidate - has taken on the role of Commander in Chief with gusto, telling his countrymen and women that they are fighting a "just war" to "defend American lives". Only a year ago, he was campaigning for the presidency on a ticket to end such wars. Now, more than his predecessor, George W Bush, Obama is committing to wars without end. How soul-destroying is that for a grunt holed up in a bunker, with his young family back home probably telling him that they have just signed up for food stamps? In their guts, these US soldiers must know - as many other ordinary people around the world do - that these wars are nothing but a desperate, pathological bid by a dying power to salvage its crumbling empire - an empire that enriches a tiny elite and impoverishes the majority. Is it any wonder that many of them simply lose the will to live?



Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Centre for Research on Globalization. The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). The Centre for Research on Globalization will not be responsible or liable for any inaccurate or incorrect statements contained in this article.

© Copyright Finian Cunningham, Gulf Daily News, 2010

The url address of this article is: www.globalresearch.ca/PrintArticle.php?articleId=16916

© Copyright 2005-2007 GlobalResearch.ca
Web site engine by Polygraphx Multimedia © Copyright 2005-2007

[jdog]

You are looking at a small number of those deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan to those actually in the military. Suicide is and always will be a VERY big problem in the military. When I was stationed in Korea for a year we had one of the Security Forces airmen take their own life. He checked out a 9mm pistol from the armory, went back to his dorm room and shot himself in the head.

It happens a lot. The media just rarely hears about it.

[raum]

In order to be in the miltary, you have to be willing to kill. Thus the military is full of would-be killers. The difference is they seek discipline and purpose, and social acceptance of their actions. They may even be inspired to such acts out of pride or dedication to their country, nation, or family. But they have a killing instinct. Correction, WE had a killing instict.

The problem is though the military lowered standards to keep recruiting numbers high. You lower standards, you get more people who were unstable before. You also have more people unfit for military life in the military than ever before. Then, the added stress of public scrutiny, and a world quickly going to shit, and hell I don't blame em, personally. The wole world feels clusterfucked right now. So, I took up guitar again. That way if I am the last mutha left alive, I can transmit delta blues out into space, so it don't die with our dumb asses.

[jdog]

In order to be in the miltary, you have to be willing to kill. Thus the military is full of would-be killers. The difference is they seek discipline and purpose, and social acceptance of their actions. They may even be inspired to such acts out of pride or dedication to their country, nation, or family. But they have a killing instinct. Correction, WE had a killing instict.

Wrong. You need to be willing to SERVE your country. Being in the military is not paramount with being able to kill.

The problem is though the military lowered standards to keep recruiting numbers high. You lower standards, you get more people who were unstable before. You also have more people unfit for military life in the military than ever before. Then, the added stress of public scrutiny, and a world quickly going to shit, and hell I don't blame em, personally. The wole world feels clusterfucked right now. So, I took up guitar again. That way if I am the last mutha left alive, I can transmit delta blues out into space, so it don't die with our dumb asses.

Lower standards regarding taking high school drop outs or even people with minor felonies...and that is the US Army only.

More people unfit for military life than ever before? Not hardly. That would go back to WWII or even Vietnam, where people were drafted for military service. Today's military is 100% volunteered service. You have to CHOOSE to join the military. In WWII and Vietnam, every piece of shit on the street was drafted. That would be people unfit for military life.

Gotta know ALL the facts. ;)

[Dietrich]

In my view, the bias evident in the above-quoted article calls into question the veracity of the cited statistics.

In order to be in the miltary, you have to be willing to kill. Thus the military is full of would-be killers. The difference is they seek discipline and purpose, and social acceptance of their actions. They may even be inspired to such acts out of pride or dedication to their country, nation, or family. But they have a killing instinct.

Lt. Col. Dave Grossman (former Army Ranger and paratrooper), in his book On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society, asserts that actually the vast majority of soldiers are loathe to kill in battle and that modern armies use Pavlovian and operant conditioning to overcome this instinctive aversion.

The problem is though the military lowered standards to keep recruiting numbers high. You lower standards, you get more people who were unstable before. You also have more people unfit for military life in the military than ever before.

From what I've observed, it's not that the US military has lowered its standards, it's that a greater proportion of potential recruits are suboptimally healthy -- for a host of reasons, including but not limited to fast-food diet, drugs, alcohol, sedentary lifestyle -- and such relative unhealthy-ness makes for at least somewhat increased susceptibility to psychological problems.

However, the above article asserts that the supposedly higher incidence of suicide among military personnel is in effect proof that the wars currently being conducted by the US military are "wrong". Such evident bias makes me disinclined to believe (not without several grains of salt, that is) the cited statistics themselves as well as the asserted reason behind them. The article's opening phrase -- "Here is a shocking statistic that you won't hear in most western news media..." -- tells me that this is another case of a media outlet claiming to be exposing the true nature of modern war while at the same time underhandedly taking advantage of the general populace's relative ignorance about how war is conducted and what life in the military is like.

That said, I definitely agree with ya, raum, about the guitar-playing.

[raum]

Ok, I speak about this as a veteran, and a patriot critical of my nation, and global politics, not a "they go what they asked for".

When I say you have to be willing to to kill, they give you a piece of paper that says alot of stuff about why you joined and what you hope to achieve, and includes the sentiment, basically in these words:

"I am willing to serve and be combat trained, knowing I might be ordered at any time by command or circumstance to fight, kill, and if need be die, for my country."

You don't sign it, you don't get a military contract of service. That is why I say what I do about would-be killers, not cause I am holding a picket sign. Furthermore, NO ONE in any branch gets through bootcamp (in any service) without being trained to operate a handgun, at least with a handgun. You have to pass gun quals, though now they amount to pretty much can you load it, take it off safety and pull the trigger.

As for the people drafted in WWII and Nam - they were built of hardier stuff, had better health in general, and had a military that didn't take shit. And there were still military suicides, always have been. They were further dehumanized in boot camp than kids now, and there was alot less administration and political correctness. I don't mean "dehumanized" in a bad way, I mean conditioned to think and accept their poisition as equipment, part of a unit.

Every other point I wanted to make, you guys did, and I will just agree.

I would also like to see a breakdown of it by gender and ethnic group. I mean overall suide rates are higher across the board anyway, and I personally think it is all symptoms of poor quality of life due to a mix of overpopulation and stockholder and corporate greed. Pretty much on a global level.

[jdog]

Ok, I speak about this as a veteran, and a patriot critical of my nation, and global politics, not a "they go what they asked for".

When I say you have to be willing to to kill, they give you a piece of paper that says alot of stuff about why you joined and what you hope to achieve, and includes the sentiment, basically in these words:

"I am willing to serve and be combat trained, knowing I might be ordered at any time by command or circumstance to fight, kill, and if need be die, for my country."

You don't sign it, you don't get a military contract of service. That is why I say what I do about would-be killers, not cause I am holding a picket sign. Furthermore, NO ONE in any branch gets through bootcamp (in any service) without being trained to operate a handgun, at least with a handgun. You have to pass gun quals, though now they amount to pretty much can you load it, take it off safety and pull the trigger.

Not sure what country you served in the military under. Here is the US Oath of Enlistment:

Code: Select all

I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

That is not indicative of being able to kill. I was in the US Air Force for over 8 years. I did have to qualify for the M16A2 every 2 years but my career field had nothing to do with combat. There are quite a bit of career fields in the US Air Force that are non-combat oriented. I guess they all supported the main role of the USAF, which is to bomb the shit out of and kill lots of people, but that was not directly involved with killing anyone.

As for the people drafted in WWII and Nam - they were built of hardier stuff, had better health in general, and had a military that didn't take shit. And there were still military suicides, always have been. They were further dehumanized in boot camp than kids now, and there was alot less administration and political correctness. I don't mean "dehumanized" in a bad way, I mean conditioned to think and accept their poisition as equipment, part of a unit.

No, the draft forced a lot of conscientious objectors and criminals/degenerates into the military. Those are non-volunteer people that only served because if they did not then they would go to jail. The current military is there because they WANT to be there. There is a BIG difference between the two types of people.

[raum]

um, the creeds of the servicemen taken UNDER OATH also dictate it:

Army and Nat'l Guard - I stand ready to deploy, engage, and destroy the enemies of the United States of America in close combat.

Air Force - I am my Nation’s Sword and Shield, Its Sentry and Avenger. I defend my Country with my Life.

Coast Guard - I shall sell life dearly to an enemy of my country, but give it freely to rescue those in peril.

US Marines - I must fire my rifle true. I must shoot straighter than my enemy who is trying to kill me. I must shoot him before he shoots me.

US Navy - I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America and I will obey the orders of those appointed over me.

Of all of these, the navy alone says it the most ambiguously. But it is still there. I know that is the one I took. Your classes in Boot camp tell you of the dangers and the reality of combat, and YOUR WILLINGNESS to engage in close quarters combat signified by you being at boot camp. Maybe people don't WANT to kill, but they are on record as being willing to do so under orders of the rules of engagement.

Moreover, in the form DD 4/1, the Universal standard contract for military service all servicemen sign, Article 9, a. (4.)

(full actual text can be looked up as a free pdf)

(I will be:) (4) Required upon order to serve in combat or other hazardous situations.

The ONLY exception to those orders not including close quarters or indirect combat is comnscientious objectors; usually military medical servicemen... are class 1-A-O they are not trained for weapons and NEVER handle ammunition.

[jdog]

1. The USAF did not have any "Airman's Creed" until 2007. During my time served, 1998-2006, and before then, such a thing did not exist. There was a Non-commissioned Officer (NCO) creed, of which applied to me when I became one. It indicated nothing of killing anyone but serving my superiors and being a leader to the airman under me.

2. Indeed, DD Form 4/1 Section C.9.a.(4) does state that you are "Required to serve in combat or other hazardous situations." It does not state that in combat you are to kill anyone. There are medics that serve on the battlefield and their only objective is to save lives, whether it is friendly or enemy.

There are hundreds of positions in the US military that are NOT combat related at all. Chaplains, medics, personnel, legal, finance, communcations, computers, construction, recruiting, training, etc.

The US has rarely been in war. Unfortunately George Bush sent us to one in 2002 and I doubt there will be an end to it. Before then and between times of war, the US military has an enormous peacetime mission. They do everything from helping 3rd world countries with hospitals to natural disaster relief.

Nobody should join the military with the mind set of killing. You are doing ONE thing. You are SERVING your country. If you take a position in the US Army or USMC then I'd wager you should be prepared to take a life. But as stated above, there are literally hundreds of military positions where you will NOT be involved in any combat operations at all.

[raum]

I didn't saw "WANTING" to kill. I said willing to. Frankly, if you are ORDERED to engage the enemy, or offer counterfire; they might die.

For example, to me, taking a life is not a deal breaker. That being said, I accept biological beings act upon each other in ways they create conflict and MAY result in loss of life. This does not mean I WANT to kill anyone. I just accepted it was a possibility that it may occur, and I was willing to accept orders to do so if enlisted. I also had to sign paperwork stating I was not a conscientious objector, (or there was paperwork to fill out if I was.) EVERY military personnel has to state they are or are not a conscientious objector in their initial paperwork, and then they are given 1-A-O status if they are. I would like to stress this is NOT a "I don't like this war"; it is a total and complete nonconditional stance against violence of any kind, religious, and/or ethical. It is nonconditional noncombatant status.

If you "become" a conscientious objector while in service, you *may* be granted 1-O status, pending your discharge.

However, Religious Program Specialists, Construction Battalions, and many other CAN be ordered to combat an enemy, and are trained for it in bootcamp... depending on the contingent rules of engagement of any given conflict. Even administrative personnel. You can be taken out of your desk job and put into a completely different position. In many cases, you may be given specific directives; for example on watch, you MAY be armed and be forced to engage. The general rule is obey your standing orders, and the general orders of the sentry; protect and defend all military equipment and personnel at your post. And this might even mean opening fire in some circumstances.

If you did not state you were a conscientious objector when joining, or become one, you are trained for combat from at least basic training or boot camp; conditional to your branch of service. YOU MAY BE ORDERED TO COMBAT AN ENEMY. Now, you may have a post that makes this unlikely, but the military can actually dispatch orders to you to report elsewhere, and YES it may be a place that combat is more likely, or for which combat is almost assured. Your role is not always up to you. But the military sees no real benefit to sending peersonnel unfit or untrained for combat to fulfill combat roles. HOWEVER, if you are not willing to recieve orders to take up arms, I can't see why you would join the military.

As for the m ilitary's peacetime role, I was part of desert shield and fully aware of this role, having built youth shelters, and shipped huge numbers of books and relief supplies when not moving ammunition in our cargo holds. The main purpose of the military is to maintain the geopgraphical and economic sovereignty of the US and her allies. I got that. but if you think the military doesn't train your for small arms fire because you may be expected to use it, you are simply mistaken. AStatistically, alot will never use it, as their roles arer support or admin.... but they MAY be expected to. By enlisting, you agree to let another decide that for you, how far up the chain of command they may be.