"Roughly one in every five U.S. troops who have survived the bombs and other dangers of Iraq and Afghanistan now suffers from major depression or post-traumatic stress, an independent study said Thursday. It estimated the toll at 300,000 or more."
You just don't get any more despicable than the despicable Associated Press. I regard anyone who stays working for the Associated Press in the same light as I regard Bararack Obama for staying in Reverend Wright's church for 20 years. You are and enabler of evil--if not evil yourself.
Look at the above headline. "Nearly one in 5" U.S. troops with war service in Afghanistan and/or Iraq has "mental problems". This is a SMEAR of the U.S. military. By this vague standard, at LEAST one in five AMERICANS has "mental problems" (the stupidest, most asinine phrase AOL or the AP has ever used in a headline). I can't be kind to this story. It is a DESPICABLE story by a despicable "news" organization on a despicable internet news service (AOL).
Look at the truly disgraceful lumping of "major depression" in with minor (and major) post-traumatic stress under the vague term "mental problems".
How many people suffer "post-traumatic" stress from driving/riding on American HIGHWAYS, where 42,000 people die each year. As a former personal injury lawyer, I can tell you that a LOT of people do (or certainly claim to do).
This mental health stuff is all pretty vague and amorphous Combat IS stressful. I would EXPECT combat veterans (World War II, Korea, Vietnam etc.) to suffer "post-traumatic stress". What appears to be hapening is that we are now paying more ATTENTION to the mental health of combat veterans. That is a GOOD thing--unworthy of the hysterical, overhyped, overblown, agenda driven treatment by the despicable Associated Press and the equally despicable AOL.
You know what? Most people, including cobat veterans (I saw LOTS of them who served in Vietnam--a MUCH worse war than Iraq or Afghanistan--whn I was in the army from 1969 to 1971) GET OVER "post-traumatic stress", even without treatment. Treatement, of course, is BETTER (for people with significant symptoms).
But the way the despicable Associated Press is playing this story, as it has played stories on suicide of combat veterans (see archives) is NOT as a real news story on the kinds of treatment combat veterans may need, and ways to make sure that treatement is available. To the despicable Associated Press, this is all about AGENDA: an anti-military (how horrible that we let our soldiers get in this condition, as if it could be avoided) and an anti-War agenda.
Even the well intentioned people involved in some of these studies can't resist going over the top--thereby helping the AP put out this kind of despicable story. This lumping of minor and serious "mental problems" is DELIBERATE, in order to call more attention to the "problem". I think that kind of hype calls into question the whole alarmist "approach" to this "problem", and undermines serious discussion of how best to take care of mental health needs of U.S. soldiers.
As usual, for this kind of story, Afghanistan (the "good war") and Iraq (the "bad war") are lumped together for purposes of this kind of study. What this indicates is that WAR is stressful--whether it is a "good war" or a "bad war". Remember Patton slapping the soldier who was suffering from combat shock? Despite the hysteria of the Associated Press, this whole overhype of "mental health" problems of today's combat veterans has NOTHING to do with the merits of the War in Iraq.
The fact is that we are providing MORE mental health treatment to combat veterans than ever before. As stated, that is a GOOD THING. However, the overhype, alarmist view of an inherent problem of combat is NOT useful. It is even the wrong way to go about getting a good mental health program for veterans. That can be done much better by a reasonable, rational approach to the (mainly minor) mental health "problems" suffered by combat veterans.
More leftist thinking? from AOL, as I reprise below a post under the above AOL story, with my response:
"Of the course pro-war ChickenHawks wouldn't know about these problems because they didn't serve."
I would be perfectly willing to go along with a society in which ONLY people who served in the military could be full citizens with the right to vote. I don't advocate it, because it would expand an already bloated Federal Government beyond all bounds. Robert Heinlein was labeled a FASCIST by leftists for appearing to advocate such a society, in is novel "Starship Troopers".
I would qualify to vote under such a system. Would most fanatic anti-War, anti-military people? Would most writers for the despicable Associated Press? I doubt it.
Do you think my analysis of the Assoicated Press agenda is too extreme? I assure you it is not. Not only have I been conducting a more detailed analysis of AP articles over the past three years than ANYONE else, citing chapter and verse, but I saw the same "dmonizing" of Vietnam veterans (the left having learned somewhat since Vietnam to cry crocodile tears over veterans as "victims" instead of outright, Vietanm style deomonization, but the message is really the same). You doubt me (you fool you!!!)? Consider this post under this story on AOL, and my reply:
"Our young men and women are trained to control and intimidate our "enemies". When they come home, they continue this dysfunctional behavior on family and friends; torturing and sometimes killing family members. Violence and emotional abuse are rampant amoung military families and is covered up or denied by the military command. This is the human condition and has been since Cain killed Abel."
The above is a SMEAR of members of the U.S. military, and FALSE. There is NO EVIDENCE that combat veterans are more dangerous than other Americans. In fact, there are considerably LESS dangerous than crack heads, gang bangers, etc.
However, the above illustrates perfectly the AGENDA behind the way the truly despicable Associated Press, and AOL, are hyping this story. Note carefully that this story applies to soldiers fighting the "good war" in Afghanistan fully as much as to the soldiers fighting the "bad war" in Iraq. Soldiers--especially marines--ARE taught to kill the enemy. That is their function. But the idea that they are then excessively dangerous when they return to the United States is FALSE, and a disgraceful smear.
No comments:
Post a Comment