Iraq battle stress worse than WWII

Just browsing through the timesonline.co.uk and I noticed this piece. Apparently a soldier can be investigated for up to a year if he shoots an insurgent. Ah well, such is modern conflicts....

Quote:

---

SENIOR army doctors have warned that troops in Iraq are suffering levels of battle stress not experienced since the second world war because of fears that if they shoot an insurgent, they will end up in court.

The two senior Royal Army Medical Corps officers, one of whom is a psychologist, have recently returned from Basra, where they said they counselled young soldiers who feared a military police investigation as much as they did the insurgents.....

One corporal said that troops arriving in Basra were confronted by warnings from the Royal Military Police. “They make it clear that any and every incident will be investigated. It is also made clear that if you shoot someone, you will face an inquiry that could take up to a year.

“The faces of the young lads straight out of training drop as the fear of being investigated strikes home and many ask whose side the RMP are on.”

Although the levels of fighting in Iraq are nowhere near those of some of the bloodiest battles of the second world war, such as the battle of the bulge or Kohima, the much more complex situation that the British troops face is pushing up stress levels just as far.

---

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...859664,00.html

I'm surprised that we don't here news of thousands of deserters...
Some things are sheer insanity...

Well, I think France beat you here. We just fired 2 generals because a few soldiers killed a murderer in Ivory Coast.

not only is the stress worse, the reneged promises are worse, too.

"According to a state Guard spokesman, Maj. Phil Osterli, at least 15 Washington National Guardsmen and women signed re-enlistment forms promising them a tax-free $15,000 bonus in return. Many of them were stationed in Iraq at the time, he said. But Pentagon officials have said in published reports that the bonuses were canceled because they duplicated other programs and were prohibited."

of course, re-enlistment lies have been around since the military was invented...

Quote:

---

SENIOR army doctors have warned that troops in Iraq are suffering levels of battle stress not experienced since the second world war because of fears that if they shoot an insurgent, they will end up in court.

---

Could it be because it's war? Plain and simple. Could it be because they care for human life? And they don't make differences upon any orders that they receive or any other factor whatsoever.
Personally I think that the "stress" of being investigated, could never be bigger that the one generated by killing people, or fearing that you might be killed at any time. I think that it's just an excuse to get out of that place, of course a valid excuse, and I'll support every damn excuse that every man gives me to abandon war, even if they just broke their fingers.

Stress in combat is a given. It racks your body while your in such a way that it takes time to get over. The more combat one faces the more time it takes the mind to overcome the stress.

Facing possible prosecution for actions in battle - can indeed increase the amount of stress that one suffers while in a combat environment. But its only an additional stress that is piled upon the others that are involved when in combat.

Trust me on this one - if you have never been in combat you have no idea how much stress is involved - Sometimes I still have problems sleeping from my time in combat, and it was relatively short.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Trust me on this one - if you have never been in combat you have no idea how much stress is involved - Sometimes I still have problems sleeping from my time in combat, and it was relatively short.

---

I've never been and I expect I'll never be. That's why I believed that the stress that comes from the very essence of battle is far greater than any other case. In any case I wish you a succesful recovery.

To be fair the article does say that stress levels in front line units are higher than any time since WW2, not higher than WW2 itself. If you are under constant threat of ambush, fighting an in an unpopular conflict and under extremely strict rules of engagement then I suspect individuals will feel more stress, perhaps on top of "normal" combat stress. Its only natural. Unfortunately there are indications here that squaddies are feeling alienated not just by the public's attitude to the conflict but also by their superiors in the Army and, further more, by the politicians and civil servants in the MoD. Though to be honest I from what I understand hostility towards MPs and ruperts is not entirely unknown even in times of peace, let alone contempt for civilians.

The main problem here is that using troops to do police tasks will always render in "issues" and collateral damage.
Iraq is not a battle field, but it's also not a stabile country to police. Really difficult position for all involved parties.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

You don't prosecute someone for killing the enemy.

---

Here you have the problem. Who is the enemy ? ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Don't be dense. If we're gonna be over there shooting people, the lawyers who are undoubtedly responsible for this PC mess have to realize that colatteral damage is a part of war.

I'm not condoning it, but that's the truth.

---

But you are not there to shoot people. The war is over as Bush said. The Iraqi army have surrendered. Here you have the core of the problem. It's unclear who the enemy is. ....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bmolsson

But you are not there to shoot people. The war is over as Bush said. The Iraqi army have surrendered. Here you have the core of the problem. It's unclear who the enemy is. ....

---

Bush never said the war was over. He stood in front of a banner that said mission accomplished while he announced that the major combat phase was over. He meant the fight against Iraqs regular uniformed forces was over, not the war. Did it come across as the war was over? Sure, if you watch the leftist spin commentary from liberal media.

But I know I am not going to change your mind bmolsson. Your part of the conjecture crowd.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

You're still being dense. You know full well what I mean.

---

Ya. What he said.

I disagree... if a soldier decides to pour fire into a crowd of school kids they would be investigated... I'm sure there are many other more realistic fire discipline issues that might result in a court martial...

Remember the incident in Afghanistan where the F-16 pilot accidentally hit a school instead of his designated target? he was court marshalled, even though it was obviously his commanders fault! utter bs. Its war...**** happens, the it's not called peace because it's the exact opposite, and putting soldiers under to many regulations and restrictions can't make it any better. They should teach a soldier discipline and proper conduct in training, if he can't abide by it, then obviously he should be court marshalled, but don't put that kind of pressure on someone out on the field.

War is a series of disasters which results in a victor
-Clemencou (sp?)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Reminds me of the story where a group of soldiers in Afghanistan accidentally called in their own coordinates, and got bombed. Might have been an urban legent, though.

---

Actually it was a special forces unit that had been ambushed, the commander ordered the bombers to target them at their position. 3 specials forces men died including the commander and were assumed dead before the bombers even reach them. 150 or so taliban soldiers were killed as well. nobody was charged for misconduct.