More than 1/3 of the US troops in Iraq says torture is acceptable

[HoreTore]

Anyone surprised? Shocked?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6627055.stm

Relevant qoutes:

The Pentagon survey found that less than half the troops in Iraq thought Iraqi civilians should be treated with dignity and respect.

More than a third believed that torture was acceptable if it helped save the life of a fellow soldier or if it helped get information about the insurgents.

About 10% of those surveyed said they had actually mistreated Iraqi civilians by hitting or kicking them, or had damaged their property when it was not necessary to do so.

Note: this survey is done by the pentagon itself, so no need to cry "liberal media whiners"...

[Mooks]

The survey, by an army mental health advisory team, sampled more than 1,700 soldiers and marines between August and October 2006.



I hardly call that 1/3 the troops in iraq.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Bandit:

It's hard to assess the validity of the study without a better sense of the sampling frame and methodology. Survey data gets influenced by lots of things -- the specific word choices used, the appearance of the person asking the questions, the venue in which those questions were asked.

However, in statistical terms, IF the sampling frame was constructed properly and the sample was an essentially random group from the appropriate population and IF the methodology of the questioning process was more or less "neutral" in its potential to influence the responses, then 1700 "data points" can be used to generate a statistically useful sample with a relatively low degree of error.

The key issue isn't the number of people sampled -- that was sufficient -- but the other research design issues that have to be controlled effectively in order to generate VALID data.

[Tribesman]

It's hard to assess the validity of the study without a better sense of the sampling frame and methodology.

Well you can get all the information you want here
http://www.armymedicine.army.mil/news/mhat/mhat_iv/mhat-iv.cfm

It appears that the army comes out worse than the marines . Perhaps that is due to length of deployments .
One thing that struck me was the 17% who view all non-combatants as insurgents . Not a good sign , but then again its a dodgy situation they are stuck in .

[Xiahou]

More than 1/3 of the US troops in Iraq says torture is acceptableI'm assuming that would probably mirror the views of the US populace at large as well. In fact, I remember seeing that the 1/3 value pretty much extends to the entire world.

Oh look! A chart (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/6063386.stm).


Views on torturing prisoners
Country Against all torture * Some degree permissible * Neither/Don't Know
Australia 75% 22% 3%
Brazil 61% 32% 8%
Canada 74% 22% 4%
Chile 62% 22% 16%
China 49% 37% 13%
Egypt 65% 25% 9%
France 75% 19% 6%
Germany 71% 21% 7%
Gt Britain 72% 24% 4%
India 23% 32% 45%
Indonesia 51% 40% 8%
Iraq 55% 42% 1%
Israel 48% 43% 9%
Italy 81% 14% 6%
Kenya 53% 38% 9%
Mexico 50% 24% 27%
Nigeria 49% 39% 12%
Philippines 56% 40% 5%
Poland 62% 27% 12%
Russia 43% 37% 19%
S Korea 66% 31% 3%
Spain 65% 16% 19%
Turkey 62% 24% 14%
Ukraine 54% 29% 18%
US 58% 36% 7%
Average 59% 29% 12%

[Rodion Romanovich]

This is shocking! Perhaps it's time to reconsider the idea of standing armies, as it seems to in this case have attracted a way too high percentage with obviously bad mental health. Especially the 10% who beat Iraqis without any reason are extremely dangerous, and should probably be kept under supervision in special homes.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Actually, I find those results rather comforting. Given that the questions seemed to be set in the context of saving people's lives (including comrades) I find it surprising that so few accept torture as an option.

As an unscientific anecdote, I would have judged that over 75% of my colleagues in Northern Ireland would have been willing to torture terrorists to save lives. It is why the responsibility for setting the standards for human rights in wartime lies primarily with the officer corps and the political administration.

I suspect quite a few soldiers in the survey were being reticent about their views. Nonetheless, that shows a significant awareness of the issue, which should be to the credit of the army hierarchy.

[Duke of Gloucester]

You beat me to it BG. I too find this encouraging (nearly 2/3 of US forces say torture is unacceptable even if it could save comrades' lives).

[Tribesman]

In fact, I remember seeing that the 1/3 value pretty much extends to the entire world.

Errrrr...thats a chart showing that different countries have different views , and that some countries support torture more than others .

[BigTex]

Actually, I find those results rather comforting. Given that the questions seemed to be set in the context of saving people's lives (including comrades) I find it surprising that so few accept torture as an option.

As an unscientific anecdote, I would have judged that over 75% of my colleagues in Northern Ireland would have been willing to torture terrorists to save lives. It is why the responsibility for setting the standards for human rights in wartime lies primarily with the officer corps and the political administration.

I suspect quite a few soldiers in the survey were being reticent about their views. Nonetheless, that shows a significant awareness of the issue, which should be to the credit of the army hierarchy.

Well said. 1/3 of grunts supporting torcher is quite low compared to other wars. Speaks volumes to the ability of the Officer's in charge. The question also tilts it so as to get a higher number then just flat out. It's "would you torcher terrorists to save lives" and not "would you torcher terrorists".

It's also a good sign that the US military is conducting these polls, and even making their findings public. Can't think of very many war's in the past were countries have asked these kinds of questions or even announced them publicly.

[Tribesman]

Well said. 1/3 of grunts supporting torcher is quite low compared to other wars. Speaks volumes to the ability of the Officer's in charge. The question also tilts it so as to get a higher number then just flat out. It's "would you torcher terrorists to save lives" and not "would you torcher terrorists".

Someone didn't read it then eh Tex:thumbsdown:

[HoreTore]

As LegioXXX pointed out, this isn't about whether american soldiers are loons or not, it's about whether Iraq makes loons out of sane people. And I think the survey clearly shows that people spend too much time down there.

The US government claim they are protecting and helping the Iraqi citizen, right? That's a bit hard to do when half the army says that they don't believe the Iraqis should even be treated with respect.

The US simply HAS to change this if they are ever going to "win the hearts and minds" in Iraq. You don't get any support with soldiers like this.

[Adrian II]

Actually, I find those results rather comforting. Given that the questions seemed to be set in the context of saving people's lives (including comrades) I find it surprising that so few accept torture as an option.

As an unscientific anecdote, I would have judged that over 75% of my colleagues in Northern Ireland would have been willing to torture terrorists to save lives. It is why the responsibility for setting the standards for human rights in wartime lies primarily with the officer corps and the political administration.

I suspect quite a few soldiers in the survey were being reticent about their views. Nonetheless, that shows a significant awareness of the issue, which should be to the credit of the army hierarchy.Teh solid judgment of BG, as so often in military matters.

On a sidenote: there are several good reasons to prefer a conscript army with a professional core over a purely professional army (let alone mercenary forces), but mental sanity is not one of them.

[PanzerJaeger]

Teh solid judgment of BG, as so often in military matters.

On a sidenote: there are several good reasons to prefer a conscript army with a professional core over a purely professional army (let alone mercenary forces), but mental sanity is not one of them.

Could you expand on that? Im not being combative, just interested.

Ive always thought that if you can afford a professional army, it is always preferable. (Mercs are a completely different issue)

[Rodion Romanovich]

Among other things, it's cheaper. The army size grows and shrinks adapting to the needs in a much more flexible way. Also, the entire population will take more responsibility for the wars and try to prevent wars that aren't necessary. Nations and empires that rely too much on mercenaries have historically tended to enter wars much more arbitrarily. Besides, the complement of conscripts makes the army damn more efficient on defense, when mercenaries or a purely standing army tend to be less reliable.

[Adrian II]

Among other things, it's cheaper. The army size grows and shrinks adapting to the needs in a much more flexible way. Also, the entire population will take more responsibility for the wars and try to prevent wars that aren't necessary. Nations and empires that rely too much on mercenaries have historically tended to enter wars much more arbitrarily. Besides, the complement of conscripts makes the army damn more efficient on defense, when mercenaries or a purely standing army tend to be less reliable.All agreed, except the latter point which I am not so sure of. In my view the main benefit of conscription is in the increased mutual awareness of the citizenry and the armed forces of each other's mentality, expectations and limitations. Professional armies are a compromise between conscript and mercenary armies, with some of the disadvantages ascribed to the latter by Machiavelli.

[Redleg]

Actually, I find those results rather comforting. Given that the questions seemed to be set in the context of saving people's lives (including comrades) I find it surprising that so few accept torture as an option.

As an unscientific anecdote, I would have judged that over 75% of my colleagues in Northern Ireland would have been willing to torture terrorists to save lives. It is why the responsibility for setting the standards for human rights in wartime lies primarily with the officer corps and the political administration.

I suspect quite a few soldiers in the survey were being reticent about their views. Nonetheless, that shows a significant awareness of the issue, which should be to the credit of the army hierarchy.

Yes indeed - I am glad that you wrote this before I saw this thread.

The only part of the data that the survey presents that concerns me is how the soldiers view the Iraqi people. That could represent several important things as it relates to the operation and how the soldiers act.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Actually, I find those results rather comforting. Given that the questions seemed to be set in the context of saving people's lives (including comrades) I find it surprising that so few accept torture as an option. Comforting? Not in any way, shape or form. This survey is shocking, and telling of an occupational force that is morally bankrupt.

Yes, in a philosophical sense, in an entirely-dissociated-from-reality kind of way, then there are cases where torture is conceivable. But that is not what this is all about.

This is about a demoralised force that has lost all sense of cause, of direction, and in the end, of morality. Less than half the troops think Iraqi civilians should be treated with dignity and respect. 10% said they had actually mistreated Iraqi civilians by hitting or kicking them when it was not necessary to do so.

There is no goal to the invasion, no cause, no definition of either enemy or victory. What there is, is a demoralised allied force left burning in the desert sun, wasting their youth in a dump, a :daisy:, on a compound surrounded by a hostile population. Put me there for six months and I'd go all Cho Seung-hui on the Iraqi's. I would be wanting to serve them brown desert ******* right too.

That is what this is about.

[Adrian II]

Put me there for six months and I'd go all Cho Seung-hui on the Iraqi's. I would be wanting to serve them brown desert ******* right too.Then you should subscribe to Banquo's Ghost's view that the survey result is actually quite comforting and shows good morale given the circumstances.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Bugger, you're right. I need to read first and reply second. :wall:

[Blodrast]

Comforting my bubblegum!... It's only "comforting" insofar as the low regard in which so many of the troops keep the Iraqis explains (at least in part) the 150k-600k kill-err, liberated Iraqi civilians...

As for attitude towards torture, this is completely and utterly unsurprising, seeing as how a large chunk of our fellow American orgahs (civilian and/or (ex-)military) explained clearly a few months ago that they don't consider waterboarding and sensory deprivation as torture, and besides, those filthy terrorists have no rights anyway.~:rolleyes:

Just goes to show that some people's "normal" is other people's "unacceptable", and that we all hold vastly different opinions - even on matters of life and death. We're all very, very different.

[Redleg]

Comforting my bubblegum!... It's only "comforting" insofar as the low regard in which so many of the troops keep the Iraqis explains (at least in part) the 150k-600k kill-err, liberated Iraqi civilians...


Do you think soldiers in previous wars thought highly of the opposition's citizens?

I know some veterns - many deceased now that had absolutely no regard for the Japanese or the Germans.

[BigTex]

Comforting my bubblegum!... It's only "comforting" insofar as the low regard in which so many of the troops keep the Iraqis explains (at least in part) the 150k-600k kill-err, liberated Iraqi civilians...

As for attitude towards torture, this is completely and utterly unsurprising, seeing as how a large chunk of our fellow American orgahs (civilian and/or (ex-)military) explained clearly a few months ago that they don't consider waterboarding and sensory deprivation as torture, and besides, those filthy terrorists have no rights anyway.~:rolleyes:

Just goes to show that some people's "normal" is other people's "unacceptable", and that we all hold vastly different opinions - even on matters of life and death. We're all very, very different.

Compared to any other war these are hugely low lvl's from grunts (not officers). You should also read very carefully the questions asked. "would you torture terrorists to save lives?" I would hope most soldiers would be willing to go the extremes to save their comrades and the people in Iraq. If this number was any lower I'd even say we have a massive problem. And really, using the lancet's findings which they even admit were skewed for a high finding for political purposes is a poor idea.

[Blodrast]

Do you think soldiers in previous wars thought highly of the opposition's citizens?

Absolutely not - I fully agree with you here.
However...
1. How on earth is that an excuse/justification ?!
2. I thought it was interesting that you used the term "opposition's citizens"... I thought it was precisely those citizens that the US went to liberate, not to fight against...
Relax, don't take it as a personal criticism - but your way of thinking just gives me some insight (potentially) into how some American folks think/feel about this war/conflict...



I know some veterns - many deceased now that had absolutely no regard for the Japanese or the Germans.

Fully agree with you. It was absolutely wrong then, as it is now.

[ajaxfetish]

I don't think BG, Redleg, and others are approaching this from a philosophical perspective of whether it's right or wrong for 1/3 of US soldiers to consider torture acceptable in some circumstances, but rather from a pragmatic perspective, considering the numbers from this survey in comparison to the nature of soldiers historically, and the military's concern with the issue in comparison to lack thereof historically. It's not a good thing, surely, but perhaps much better than it could be.

As for winning hearts and minds, holding people in contempt is certainly not conducive to earning their love, but then I don't think military occupation is a way to win hearts and minds in general. The problem is with using the military for something it doesn't do. Armies defeat other armies in battle; they don't conquer ideas and win the trust and appreciation of civilian populations. They're fighting an impossible battle insofar as they're being used to combat an ideology. Ideas must be defeated with other ideas, not with bombs and steel.

Ajax

[Blodrast]

Compared to any other war these are hugely low lvl's from grunts (not officers). You should also read very carefully the questions asked. "would you torture terrorists to save lives?" I would hope most soldiers would be willing to go the extremes to save their comrades and the people in Iraq. If this number was any lower I'd even say we have a massive problem. And really, using the lancet's findings which they even admit were skewed for a high finding for political purposes is a poor idea.

1. About the lancet study - well, that's why I used the low level bound as well as the high one, because I know it's been vehemently contested. Do you disagree with even the lower bound, of 150k ?
I personally find even that 150k figure to be a lot, considering this was not initiated as a war of occupation, but rather as one of liberation.

2. I'm not sure I follow your first sentence, can you clarify a bit ?
Are you referring to the percentage of low level soldiers in Iraq, or just the chunk that was interviewed ?
And I agree with you the way questions are formulated is always a very tricky issue.
Like I said in my previous post, BigTex, I didn't base my comments exclusively on this article, I took into account the discussions we had a few months ago, with the "legalization" of torture for suspected terrorists (I don't recall the exact title of the article, but you may remember what I'm talking about).

Again, read the conclusion of my previous post, about the huge differences in mentality among us. That's really the only conclusion I can draw. In my eyes, your opinion may be wrong, and in your eyes, my opinion may be wrong - but since there is no higher moral arbiter, we can never decide who's "right" and who's "wrong" (if that is even the case - perhaps we're both right, or wrong).
Best we can do is agree to disagree. :2thumbsup:

I would be interested to discuss (not in this thread, don't mean to derail it) why exactly some of us have such opposing views, and what are the factors that influenced us to feel/think the way we do (if that's a doable task to begin with...).

EDIT: To clarify a bit, I find the soldiers' stance much easier to understand, given the situation they find themselves in - namely, at war.
But I find it more difficult to understand why some of our fellow Orgahs (or at least the ones that are not involved in the Iraq war, if you really want to be pedantic about it) have a similar attitude.
I'm not dissing it, I'm saying I don't understand why some people think/feel that way. And I'd like to understand, naturally.

[Blodrast]

I don't think BG, Redleg, and others are approaching this from a philosophical perspective of whether it's right or wrong for 1/3 of US soldiers to consider torture acceptable in some circumstances, but rather from a pragmatic perspective, considering the numbers from this survey in comparison to the nature of soldiers historically, and the military's concern with the issue in comparison to lack thereof historically.

I agree with you. *I* was trying to approach the issue from that perspective.
:bow:

[Soulforged]

Actually, I find those results rather comforting. Given that the questions seemed to be set in the context of saving people's lives (including comrades) I find it surprising that so few accept torture as an option.
Yes I too find it surprising, but not comforting. I also believe that torture in that context has no other purpose that saving lives, and in general torture had that purpose when used non-systematically.

[Del Arroyo]

The views on torture are not surprising and not worrying. In fact, if you look at the stats that were posted for the civilian populations of various countries around the world, I think you will agree that this is a non-issue.

The issue of soldiers respecting and empathizing with individuals within the Iraqi populace is a serious one which leaders have been trying to improve for some time now-- and they have made some progress, perhaps not enough. Very few Americans speak Arabic and Arab culture gets very little exposure in America. Most Americans are barely aware of the American cultural variations which exist outside their immediate geographic region-- joining the Army usually broadens their horizons in this respect, but they are still often unprepared to psychologically process a culture which has many striking, superficial differences from their own.

That said, there are alot of good eggs. Time spent working alongside the locals tends to produce positive effects.

[Redleg]

Absolutely not - I fully agree with you here.
However...
1. How on earth is that an excuse/justification ?!
2. I thought it was interesting that you used the term "opposition's citizens"... I thought it was precisely those citizens that the US went to liberate, not to fight against...
Relax, don't take it as a personal criticism - but your way of thinking just gives me some insight (potentially) into how some American folks think/feel about this war/conflict...


Where in my statement did I excuse or justified that 50% of the troops treat the Iraqi's badly. If you read my previous post to that you will have your answer, but here to help you out with my postion.

The only part of the data that the survey presents that concerns me is how the soldiers view the Iraqi people. That could represent several important things as it relates to the operation and how the soldiers act.


Troops suffering from anxiety, depression or stress were more likely to engage in unethical behaviour, together with those who had had a colleague wounded or killed in their unit.



Its important to understand how people act and react in stress and combat. That the study is being done is a demonstration that some are trying to address the concerns that raised by the study - well that is my hope and assumption about why the study was done and subsequentaly published for the public to read. This demonstrates an openness to change that was not present in previous conflicts, now the question remains is will the military chain of command do something about it to bring about the change.

Change can not happen if studies are not done, the findings published and discussed. While you are viewing it as a solely negative item, I find it refreshing that the military that I served in, is actually attempting to study and maybe change the soldier's preception of things to a more constructive viewpoint. Time will tell if I am right on that or not.

I found your view point to solely function on the negative aspect of the report, not on the historical significance that the report and its publication could mean in regards to address a very common aspect of all previous conflicts - that the citizens of the nation in conflict are not worthy of fair treatment.





Fully agree with you. It was absolutely wrong then, as it is now.

See the above - Hopefully you can see the historical signifiance about such a study done by the military. If something postivie can be gained from the study - ie better training and education of the soldier entering the conflict about how to deal with the civilians caught in the middle of the conflict. So from a pure personal aspect yes one should not tolerate torture or abuse - from a military historical aspect this study and its publication is a step in the right direction in attempting to prevent the abuse by maybe studying the effects of combat on the soldiers and their actions.

[HoreTore]

Change can not happen if studies are not done, the findings published and discussed. While you are viewing it as a solely negative item, I find it refreshing that the military that I served in, is actually attempting to study and maybe change the soldier's preception of things to a more constructive viewpoint. Time will tell if I am right on that or not.

This is the reason why the study was made, and also why I posted this here. The critic in the report isn't the soldiers view of things, it is HOW they get those views.

The answer according to the study, is that soldiers are in Iraq for too long each time, and with too short time back home. If the figures can be reduced with shorter stays with a longer rest period, then surely this is a good thing? I can't understand why someone wouldn't want that. It's a mental issue, war screws up peoples mind, and it's in everyones interest to stop that.

[Redleg]

This is the reason why the study was made, and also why I posted this here. The critic in the report isn't the soldiers view of things, it is HOW they get those views.

The answer according to the study, is that soldiers are in Iraq for too long each time, and with too short time back home. If the figures can be reduced with shorter stays with a longer rest period, then surely this is a good thing? I can't understand why someone wouldn't want that. It's a mental issue, war screws up peoples mind, and it's in everyones interest to stop that.

And you have pointed out the reason for my stance on the subject. I have absolutely no problem with the study or its findings. But then I am not looking at the negative aspect of the report either.

[HoreTore]

The study is very negative, but the criticism should be directed at the generals in command rather than the soldiers. And, to some extent, the recruitment policy for the army.

The question you have to ask, is this: has the mental health of the soldiers in Iraq been a top priority? The fact that the study is here now, as opposed to a year or two ago, means to me that it hasn't. Which is, of course, completely unacceptable. I'll bet a number of the people fighting in Iraq, for example a good portion of the 10% who said they've hurt innocent Iraqis for no reason, will get severe mental problems in some years. Depressions, anxiety, guilt, anger, sleep deprivation etc will be problems.

To me, this issue is as important as life itself, what good is it to live when all you do is sit in a corner and dribble?

This simply have to change, this study must be taken seriously. And the recruitment policy and tests have to be reviewed, especially tests relating to whether a persons mental health is good enough for war.

[KafirChobee]

To be honest there is another report (looking through all the garbage I subscribe to) that says it is much higher in accordance to the number of tours a soldier does - as high as 43% (higher for Marines) for those that go back a 3rd time. Personally, I do not find it either comforting or rellevent - it is simply the way it is. Ask anyone that was in 'nam as a grunt for more than 7 months and (if they are honest) they'll tell you torture is cool, murder can be justified, (like the helicopter interrigation - toss one suspect out and you can't get the other to stop talking), and having a Zippo cleansing (lighting up a village that was close to one's patrol being shot at.

In 'nam it took about 7 months for a trooper to become acclamated to the brutality of the saddists and survivors in their group and either become believers (of one side or the other), as the old timers were or go nuts - it is simply a matter of time and the elements of the situations to dissuade the sain to go insain. It's why the public spit on us when we came home - it was a matter that some of us had committed crimes that our populace considered unAmerican - but, wtf did they know?

A story my cousin told me (after he informed me that human life was equal to that of a fly's -1971 - at SIU - Ill.) about his being picked up at the repo-depo is an illustration. Here one has a fng sitting in the back of a truck when suddenly two of the old guys open up with their M-16s. He leaps to his feet thinking with his newly issued M16 (that was dirty as hell, and he had been cleaning) to return fire ... he sees nothing going on so he asks, "what's going on?" The old guys reply, "Out there man." What cuz sees is an old man plowing a field with his grandson on the back of an oxen. "What are you doing?", asks cuz. "Trying to take out the kid with out hitting the Ox", is the reply. My Cuz turned his weapon on them and told them to stop. They did, but made a note that the fng needed to be educated ... within a few months he was (and the old guys that picked him up? They died in the next engagement of the Americal Div. - as did 23% of their grunts in the battalion).

Thing is, a person rearranges his philosphy (s) of life in accordance with the deaths of their friends and their own need to survive. When one gets past the need to survive they either turn into fatalists, or survivalists. The latter will do anything to survive and justify it by turning everyone they don't recognizes as a friend as being an enemy. It's real simple, if you have ever been there. If you haven't? Don't judge.

Personally, I know where the saddists come from - but, I find it sad that we haven't done anything for these souls - like keeping them home or getting them psychological help. Then again, we haven't done anything for many of the men that served 40 years ago (you know the 27% of the homeless that are Vietnam vets).
:balloon2:

[Husar]

The survey, by an army mental health advisory team, sampled more than 1,700 soldiers and marines between August and October 2006.

I hardly call that 1/3 the troops in iraq.
Just curious, but are you implying that the pentagon/army is unable to make a representative study?:inquisitive:

[Adrian II]

Just curious, but are you implying that the pentagon/army is unable to make a representative study?:inquisitive:Meh, everybody knows the Pentagon are a bunch of pinko wuzzies.

[Fragony]

This is all hardly surprising when you are attacked everyday and see little or no improvement. Seems to me like the troops are mentally at their ends. But what kind of torture, the Abu Graib variety or the hardcore stuff? If it is the first, well that's not that bad imho, more like intimidation, interrogation+ deluxe.

[Redleg]

The study is very negative, but the criticism should be directed at the generals in command rather than the soldiers. And, to some extent, the recruitment policy for the army.

Incorrect. Combat and stress effects people differently based upon many different things. Only part comes from how they develope prior to enlistment into the military. Do a few bad apples get into the military - sure, just like there is a percentage of the population that will develop badly. Are there tests that could weed out those individuals prior to their enlistment into the service - very possible.

But one should remember this study is a rarity in the history of any military. Mental health was basically ignored by the all militaries until very recently. When one applies that measurement - one sees the postive aspect of this study. Study of a situation leads to brainstorming of ideas, adequate brainstorming leads to changes.

Look at Kafir's post he is spot on about the mental aspects of combat and how combat changes an individual.

And this is the problem faced by the combat soldier, and why the military focus so heavily on combat training.



The question you have to ask, is this: has the mental health of the soldiers in Iraq been a top priority? The fact that the study is here now, as opposed to a year or two ago, means to me that it hasn't. Which is, of course, completely unacceptable. I'll bet a number of the people fighting in Iraq, for example a good portion of the 10% who said they've hurt innocent Iraqis for no reason, will get severe mental problems in some years. Depressions, anxiety, guilt, anger, sleep deprivation etc will be problems.


Compared to Desert Storm, Somilia, and Bosinia - my only real life exambles - the mental health of the soldier has a higher priority then it ever has before. Is it enough - the study would indicate that more needs to be done. This is where the postive side of the story comes into being, if the military is willing to publish the story for public consumption - it should mean that mental health will be futher studied and hopefully changes made to enlistment criteria, and even battlefield mental health.

Given the nature of your paragraph - even those who don't abuse innocent Iraqis have mental problems for years. For examble having served in Desert Storm - I still have some problem sleeping on some nights - all from seeing a battlefield - where the Iraqi army left their dead for the dogs to eat until we arrived to clean up the site - 10 days after the bombing raid. Mental health is a tricky thing - what effects one person negativily doesn't always effect another.

Again that the military is actually attempting to study the problem and publish the results is a major step in the right direction. Something that soldiers from previous conflicts had no help with until they were released from the service.




To me, this issue is as important as life itself, what good is it to live when all you do is sit in a corner and dribble?

This simply have to change, this study must be taken seriously. And the recruitment policy and tests have to be reviewed, especially tests relating to whether a persons mental health is good enough for war.

Agreed - and its exactly what I have been saying all along. Our main difference is that I see the report for what it is - a step in the right direction for a condition that has been effecting soldiers for many many years and conflicts that is finally being addressed. The military would not have published the results themselves if the situation was not being taken serious.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Well you can get all the information you want here
http://www.armymedicine.army.mil/news/mhat/mhat_iv/mhat-iv.cfm

It appears that the army comes out worse than the marines . Perhaps that is due to length of deployments .
One thing that struck me was the 17% who view all non-combatants as insurgents . Not a good sign , but then again its a dodgy situation they are stuck in .

Thanks for the link.

They've provided some excellent summary material and the surveys themselves for review.

I did not find a clearly delineated methodology section covering the administration process of the surveys. "given to" soldier and marine groups is less specific than I would like.

The surveys seem to be quite long and I wonder how much respondent fatigue impacted the data generated. Thoughtful consideration on all of these responses would mean excellent data...rushing to "get this fpos done" so I can have some down time would not. The study should talk very specifically about the administration process.

I'd have liked to see the framework for how the focus groups were conducted as well. The summary suggests they were using peerp groups -- good call in a strongly hierarchic organization -- and that a good deal of discussion was generated. I suspect there was a good bit of useful data here.

[Agent Smith]

Anyone surprised? Shocked?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6627055.stm

Relevant qoutes:

The Pentagon survey found that less than half the troops in Iraq thought Iraqi civilians should be treated with dignity and respect.

More than a third believed that torture was acceptable if it helped save the life of a fellow soldier or if it helped get information about the insurgents.

About 10% of those surveyed said they had actually mistreated Iraqi civilians by hitting or kicking them, or had damaged their property when it was not necessary to do so.

Note: this survey is done by the pentagon itself, so no need to cry "liberal media whiners"...

Good lord.

The survey was done by the military, yes. However, your article, was written by a media outlet. And, because of that, there is always information left out, intentionally or otherwise. Which is why you have to take polls with a grain of salt, with the most important question to ask yourself being "What questions were asked and what answers were the respondents allowed to give?"

Read the report yourself:

http://www.armymedicine.army.mil/news/mhat/mhat_iv/MHAT_IV_Report_17NOV06.pdf

First, look at how the questions were asked, which are provided for on page 34. Let's look at the first one, which states "All non-combatants should be treated with dignity and respect," followed by the ability to give one of five answers: Strongly Agree (5), Somewhat Agree (4), Neither Agree or Disagree (3), Somewhat Disagree (2), Strongly Disagree (1).

Now it is true that 47% of Soldiers and 38% of Marines said "All non-combatants should be treated with dignity and respect." But what does that qualitatively mean? Is that 47% of soldiers answered (5) to the question? Did they discount all other answers when coming up with the percentage? What is the percentage of respondents that said they should NEVER be treated with dignity and respect? A breakdown of each answer isn't provided for, and I would hardly call a (4) or even a (3) to be a negative response.

That analysis applies to all of their questions.

On a side note, the line "About 10% of those surveyed said they had actually mistreated Iraqi civilians by hitting or kicking them, or had damaged their property when it was not necessary to do so" is a poor explanation, and a large misrepresentation, of the actual statistics (which is party the fault of the person who wrote the conclusion of the survey). The fact is, damaging property and mistreating civilians with violence are two separate questions. Yes, 12% of Marines and 9% of Soldiers said they damaged property. HOWEVER, only 7% of Marines and 4% of soldiers said they mistreated civilians by hitting or kicking them. Lumping the two figures together is just poor statistical analysis if you are asking the questions separately. Assuming that there were equal number of Marines and Soldiers given the test, than only 5.5% of respondents said they had violently treated a civilian, as compared to 10.5% of respondents saying they damaged property. That's a big difference. They are two separate subjects that were asked in two separate questions. Why lump them together is a conclusion?

In any event, I HATE when polls and statistics are reported on in the media, because you can make them say whatever you want.

[HoreTore]

Agreed - and its exactly what I have been saying all along. Our main difference is that I see the report for what it is - a step in the right direction for a condition that has been effecting soldiers for many many years and conflicts that is finally being addressed. The military would not have published the results themselves if the situation was not being taken serious.

I do believe we suffer some minor communication problems, as I believe we agree with each other, at least I fully agree with everything you've said...

That this report exists, and is taken seriously, is off course a tremendous step in the right direction and very positive. What I meant was negative, was the fact that 50% of the troops say that they do not respect civilians. Yes, it may be lower than ever before, but it's still way to high if you intend to "win hearts and minds"...

But this is not just an american problem, of course. I finished my military service(conscript) half a year ago. During that year, officers talked almost nonstop about how great international service(as you have to join for another year to be sent to war) is, but they talked almost exclusively about the positive aspects. Mental health and what a war and battlefield does to your brain, wasn't mentioned even once. I tried to bring it up one time, but the answer I got was short, and I got the feeling I was talked down to. I've thought about the possibility of joining, but the thing holding me back has never been the possibility of being shot, it has been the uncertainty of what may happen to my head.

[Redleg]

I do believe we suffer some minor communication problems, as I believe we agree with each other, at least I fully agree with everything you've said...

That this report exists, and is taken seriously, is off course a tremendous step in the right direction and very positive. What I meant was negative, was the fact that 50% of the troops say that they do not respect civilians. Yes, it may be lower than ever before, but it's still way to high if you intend to "win hearts and minds"...

But this is not just an american problem, of course. I finished my military service(conscript) half a year ago. During that year, officers talked almost nonstop about how great international service(as you have to join for another year to be sent to war) is, but they talked almost exclusively about the positive aspects. Mental health and what a war and battlefield does to your brain, wasn't mentioned even once. I tried to bring it up one time, but the answer I got was short, and I got the feeling I was talked down to. I've thought about the possibility of joining, but the thing holding me back has never been the possibility of being shot, it has been the uncertainty of what may happen to my head.

Mental health is not discussed within the ranks for numerous reasons. One being that it is often seen as a form of weakness. That its activitily being researched and discussed in the military at this time is a postive step.

You can not go to combat and kill your fellow man without some type of negative effect. When troops are stuck fighting an insurgent war that they were inadequately prepared for - Remember the United States prior to 2004 primarily trained as a combat force not an occupation mission. We were unprepared as a military force for the mission we assumed in Iraq. While you believe that the number of 50% say they do not respect Iraqi civilians - that number is significantly lower then many past conflicts.

To kill your fellow man - often requires you to come to terms with yourself afterwards. To think less of them often is the result of that coming to term.

[HoreTore]

Mental health is not discussed within the ranks for numerous reasons. One being that it is often seen as a form of weakness. That its activitily being researched and discussed in the military at this time is a postive step.

You can not go to combat and kill your fellow man without some type of negative effect. When troops are stuck fighting an insurgent war that they were inadequately prepared for - Remember the United States prior to 2004 primarily trained as a combat force not an occupation mission. We were unprepared as a military force for the mission we assumed in Iraq. While you believe that the number of 50% say they do not respect Iraqi civilians - that number is significantly lower then many past conflicts.

To kill your fellow man - often requires you to come to terms with yourself afterwards. To think less of them often is the result of that coming to term.

I was talking about conversations/lectures by officers, not among privates... But there was actually a lot of talk at my room about the mental aspects of war, and the fact that our officers never talked about it. It was one of our favourite topics, but of course way below the "Angelina vs Carmen vs Elisha"-debate...

But I have a question, how are things in the american military? How much is mental health talked about when recruiting?

[Redleg]

I was talking about conversations/lectures by officers, not among privates... But there was actually a lot of talk at my room about the mental aspects of war, and the fact that our officers never talked about it. It was one of our favourite topics, but of course way below the "Angelina vs Carmen vs Elisha"-debate...

So was I - its not normally discussed. Neither is it a topic much discussed by NCO's.



But I have a question, how are things in the american military? How much is mental health talked about when recruiting?

It is a question on the enlistment contract. Thats about it if I remember correctly.

[HoreTore]

Well, removing that extreme macho culture would be step one then, I guess. When I think back, I can't think of more than 2 of my officers who wasn't like that, a rookie sergeant and my first captain...

Removing it would do wonders on other fields too...

[Redleg]

Well, removing that extreme macho culture would be step one then, I guess. When I think back, I can't think of more than 2 of my officers who wasn't like that, a rookie sergeant and my first captain...

Removing it would do wonders on other fields too...

Again it takes a certain attitude to do what is an extremely dangerous job, regardless if you serve in peace or war. Avoiding mental health is not an extreme macho culture defense against what is even precieved in the civil world as a weakness.

And before you begin to go on a tangent about mental health not being seen as a weakness in the everyday culture - my wife is bi-polar, and I see it on a daily basis, especially from those who have no concept on what mental health is about. So criticising the military on this aspect is misplaced - its a society issue at large. The military is a microism of the real issue of mental health.

So what we have so far is that the military in the United States is at least attempting to study the issue, has written a report on it, released it for public consumption, and the media has written a story about it. Unfortunately as another has rightly pointed out, the media has skewed the story.

So no, I can not agree that removing the macho culture from the military is the right course of action. Educating all on the effects of stress on one's mental health is a good thing, but its not just a military one. THe military faces extreme stess, so do police, fireman, and a whole host of other professions. You ever wonder why police often isolate themselves from other civilians?

[Agent Smith]

That this report exists, and is taken seriously, is off course a tremendous step in the right direction and very positive. What I meant was negative, was the fact that 50% of the troops say that they do not respect civilians. Yes, it may be lower than ever before, but it's still way to high if you intend to "win hearts and minds"...

You have completely failed to take what I have said into account about that statistic.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

You have completely failed to take what I have said into account about that statistic.

Nor the comments on potential limitations I voiced. This may be brilliantly accurate data (actually I am skeptical of the survey but inclined to value the focus group stuff more based on the reportage), but the explication of methodology is not complete enough to evaluate the process as fully as I would like, and our Matrix-antagonist pal here has posited some clear examples wherein the method may not be quite so easily reduced to simple percentages as the media overview has done.

Horetore, surely you are a more critical news consumer than this?

[Tribesman]

You should also read very carefully the questions asked.
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: Someone still hasn't read it :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Generally speaking Tex when you put these things "" round words it implies something:idea2:

[BigTex]

:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: Someone still hasn't read it :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Gener'ally sp''eaking Tex when you put these "things "" rou''nd w'ords it im''pli'e's someth''ing:idea2:

Maybe your onto something here Pinky, with more " we could take over the world!

[Tribesman]

Maybe your onto something here Pinky,
Yep


The question also tilts it so as to get a higher number then just flat out. It's "would you torcher terrorists to save lives" and not "would you torcher terrorists".


You should also read very carefully the questions asked. "would you torture terrorists to save lives?"
onto the fact that you havn't read the questions

[HoreTore]

Horetore, surely you are a more critical news consumer than this?

I do not care about the news story, nor do I care about those numbers. They are completely irrelevant to the things I care about.

[Del Arroyo]

Thank you, Agent Smith, for your analysis.

[Agent Smith]

Thank you, Agent Smith, for your analysis.

I assume you were being serious, so you're welcome :2thumbsup:

[Del Arroyo]

I assume you were being serious, so you're welcome :2thumbsup:

Well yeah, I mean sorry for being so succinct. You pointed out some flaws with the study that no one had isolated yet, everything you said kinda made sense, liked your post.

[Agent Smith]

Well yeah, I mean sorry for being so succinct. You pointed out some flaws with the study that no one had isolated yet, everything you said kinda made sense, liked your post.

No need to apologize. I'm just not very good at picking up when someone is being sarcastic on message boards!

[Redleg]

I do not care about the news story, nor do I care about those numbers. They are completely irrelevant to the things I care about.

Then you should be very careful of critical analysis of such studies. The numbers are important for the understanding of the problem. The numbers provide focus for the mental health experts to provide advice to the military about how to solve combat stress effects on the human pysch.

This type of statement does not bode well for your previous arguement, it demonstates a lack of understanding and caring for the soldier and the effects of combat on the human pysch.

[HoreTore]

I should have said that I do not care about the exact numbers... Whether 30%, 40%, 50% or 60% of the army disrespects Iraqis, is rather irrelevant, as anything above a few percent is way to high if you intend to make Iraqis appreciate your "support". They should be recalled immediately. As for the other worrying question, the "have you injured people without reason" one, it's even worse, and I doubt the actual figure is lower, it's more likely to be higher.

My argument is just as valid if the number was 30% instead of 50%. The army has begun to understand that mental health is an issue, however, they are lightyears away from the rest of society, and so they need a kick in the behind to speed things up. It's a good thing that they have started, a bad thing that they have used so long to find out the obvious.

[Agent Smith]

I should have said that I do not care about the exact numbers... Whether 30%, 40%, 50% or 60% of the army disrespects Iraqis, is rather irrelevant, as anything above a few percent is way to high if you intend to make Iraqis appreciate your "support". They should be recalled immediately. As for the other worrying question, the "have you injured people without reason" one, it's even worse, and I doubt the actual figure is lower, it's more likely to be higher.

My argument is just as valid if the number was 30% instead of 50%. The army has begun to understand that mental health is an issue, however, they are lightyears away from the rest of society, and so they need a kick in the behind to speed things up. It's a good thing that they have started, a bad thing that they have used so long to find out the obvious.

Then you really misunderstand the dynamics of the question asked.

Some soldiers have had experiences of being disrespected by civilians, so some of them don't like to return the favor. So, those people probably answered "somewhat agreed" or "neither agree nor disagree" because they feel respect is given when respect is shown. Does that constitute saying that they DON'T think civilians should be treated with respect? Hardly.

The real key is how many people answered that they strongly disagree that they should be treated with respect. And those actual numbers could be ery, very low for all you know.

[Del Arroyo]

HoreTore, I must say that I do not agree with you at all. If an individual reacts naturally to the circumstances in which he is placed, can it be said that this individual is sick? If the problem is the conditions, then the solution is not internal, it is external. How will mental health screening help if any sane person will react the same way?

The better investments would be in improved command direction and training-- which is where much effort has been placed. Whether this effort has been sufficient or not is another matter.

Also, there are so many factors affecting the current situation in Iraq that have absolutely nothing to do with the behavior or "sanity" of US forces that it is a little absurd to point at this study and say "ah, here is the smoking gun!".

Furthermore, the issues which Agent Smith raised as to the validity of the data collection and reporting are sufficient to cast significant doubt on the validity of the study.

[ajaxfetish]

Furthermore, the issues which Agent Smith raised as to the validity of the data collection and reporting are sufficient to cast significant doubt on the validity of the study.
I wouldn't so much say that they cast doubt on the validity of the study, so much as raise unanswered questions about how the study should best be interpreted. I like Seamus' position that more detailed information on the specifics of how it was conducted and what the exact results were would be nice.

Ajax

[Tribesman]

If I was in Iraq, and a situation arose in which I had to mistreat, beat up, or torture an Iraqi to save the life of a comrade, I'd do it. And I hope any other soldier would do the same for me.

So your basic training didn't teach you much about the laws you have to follow then:dizzy2: No surprise there then GC
:shame:

The lives of the Soldiers come first.
Nope , soldiers are expendable , didn't you read the smallprint when you signed up .:laugh4: :laugh4: :oops:

[ajaxfetish]

If I was in Iraq, and a situation arose in which I had to mistreat, beat up, or torture an Iraqi to save the life of a comrade, I'd do it. And I hope any other soldier would do the same for me.

The lives of the Soldiers come first.
By your logic, it's a good thing I'm not in the military. I can't be sure what the stresses of the situation might do to me, but I sure hope I wouldn't be willing to torture an Iraqi for any reason. As a religious/spiritual person, I believe a good soldier would be welcomed by God if he died in the line of duty, and his unjust killer would face eternal justice in the end. The eternal blight on my mind and soul from participating in torture isn't worth it.

Ajax

[Redleg]

My argument is just as valid if the number was 30% instead of 50%. The army has begun to understand that mental health is an issue, however, they are lightyears away from the rest of society, and so they need a kick in the behind to speed things up. It's a good thing that they have started, a bad thing that they have used so long to find out the obvious.

Incorrect - Society in general is lightyears behind on mental health issues. So I find a major fault with your statement here.

Care to guess how civilians with bi-polar are treated in the civilian world?

[ShadeHonestus]

I find the study very interesting indeed. I know that it says a lot about the situation and mindset of our troops, but I also wonder how much would be lost going from belief to practical application. That same curve of gentlemen who say they can kill in combat as opposed to those finding that pulling the trigger is much harder than saying you can. In fairness you have to ponder those that say they wouldn't and yet when stress breaks your capacity you find yourself committing the offense.

Somebody mentioned the "macho attitude" coming in play here and while I don't dismiss this idea, from my own experience in the military the macho attitude both individual and collective served as more of a mental survival mechanism which was conducive for the training and muscle memory to function more readily. I see it much less as any kind of value system. The cadence an example. Many times my fellow marines and I chanted many horrific things like the "napalm sticks to kids" line, but yet those I served with are probably some of the finest human beings I've ever or will ever know and they'd sacrifice themselves to save any child from exposure to napalm.

Finally I'd just like to note here that I'd like to see the study done along the time-line of a conflict. No doubt we'd see the stress levels relative to the answers given. Tribesman mentioned something about remembering the laws given in basic training and he's quite right. You go over to Iraq, regardless of your politics, you fight for the men and women next to you, you find yourself emotionally vested in the country's citizenry and you are bound by law to fight for the rights of your combatant. The inherent stress is in exponential increase.