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

[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).

[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?

[Adrian II]

Just curious, but are you implying that the pentagon/army is unable to make a representative study?

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/new...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:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

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/new...rt_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.

Someone still hasn't read it
Generally speaking Tex when you put these things "" round words it implies something

[BigTex]

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

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

[Del Arroyo]

I assume you were being serious, so you're welcome

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.