Pre and post deployment support
Soldiers deploying and returning from deployment’s are run the gambit of “helpful” briefings and screenings by the DOD and VA. Unit FSGs and the community service agencies of each branch have greatly increased the benefits and support available to both soldiers and their spouses. While these programs all seem positive in and of themselves, (Battlemind, Yellow Ribbon, PDHRA, Strong Bonds, WTU’s, etc etc.) they have all been created ad-hoc, and some have limited public awareness, such as the strong bonds program. My focus is social service needs and mental health, though medical treatment falls into this. My question is, if you were to create a comprehensive program for the returning vets, what programs would you keep or model your plan on; what programs are redundant or of negative benefit? All feedback is beneficial
Reed
At the risk of seeming unduly uncaring and callous,
let me suggest with personal AND family experience at returning from several wars that the current focus on such support assumes everyone needs pretty much the same thing and the need or desirability for such support is universal. I strongly doubt that. Predeployment or post deployment, tour location, length and efforts / job while deployed all have an effect and every individual and family situation is different.
My assessment of today's efforts is that it is significant overkill for most. I understand the (presumed?) difficulty in a large organization of tailoring such support as opposed to offering high volume, one size fits all solutions but I would also suggest that many people are being exposed to ideas they might never get on their own. The current processes offer excessive support that is excessive for most, adequate for a few and inadequate for a few more; the effort needs to be tailored and that, to me, means a psychological assessment for each person -- a very difficult but not impossible task -- or, better yet, such an assessment before service entry and rejection of those likely to need heavy support.
An idea which ought to fire up the PC crowd...:wry:
SME you may be but you're taking my comment in the
wrong direction. Don't look for pre-existing issues, they're obviously not reliable as a forecast mechanism, not what I intended at all.
Look for the mental outlook that can and will tolerate stress. Hire more sociopaths -- and yes, I'm quite serious.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
reed11b
...while a history of pre-existing mental health issues make PTSD more likely, the majority of soldiers diagnosed with PTSD have had NOsignificant MH history.
Obviously.
Quote:
...There is also a large body of deployed soldiers w/ MH histories that have had no Combat related MH troubles.
Also obviously. I'd add that the combat flip out is variable, can occur early or later and that the number of triggers available on the battlefield is vast. MH issues in general do not show how well combat stress will be tolerated, people are too variable -- but the sociopathic trend, if not total, can aid in acceptance of most combat stressors.
Quote:
...I appreciate your participation in the subject Ken, but on this matter I am closer to being a SME.
Gee, thanks. I appreciate your appreciation. Always good to deal with experts even if they do go in the wrong direction..:rolleyes:
Quote:
...Prevention of disciplinary failures in basic and early in enlistments may be more achievable through pre-screening however.Reed
Nothing to do with combat stress; in fact the guy with minor disciplinary problems is probably more tolerant of combat stress than the average straight arrow. We probably should stop trying to throw 'em all out of the service and exercise a little leadership. :cool:
If it is, you took it there
Quote:
Originally Posted by
reed11b
...This thread is now waaaaay of target, I'm looking for what social service and mental health programs that exist should be kept, wich can go and what needs to be changed. Reed
I merely suggested that a focussed psychological screening to detect those who may be better able to tolerate combat stress might be worth exploring. That seems consistent with what you asked.
IIRC, several recent research projects using a variety of methods including MRIs have determined that many people have a distinct aversion to violence while others seem to tolerate it well. That tracks with my observation over a number of years. The Sociopath tendency should not be totally rejected; most of us have a variety of little pathys in there and it seems to me that screening merits consideration.
With that, I'll leave you the floor.
Sociopath don't quite do it ...
for me because I think immediately of sociopaths as we think of that term in the criminal justice system - serial criminals (whether murder, rape, robbery or theft), who lack any empathy and are extremely self-centered.
I don't think that is what you are really saying, Ken - since IMO none of the criminal sociopaths I've known would have been at all useful in the military.
Slap may well have an opinion on this which is based on more experience - despite his relative youth.
There are personality types (probably galore) who can hack violence - even when it is of the cold-blooded kind. I think of three friends over the years (two still with us in the Copper Country) who were Marine snipers in Nam and who seem to have been relatively untouched by the experience. If anything, it seems to have been a positive thing - that from an outside observer who is not into their heads, but just a guy who drank a fair amount of beer with them.
On the other hand, there are personality types (again probably galore) who cannot hack violence. And, a bunch in between. So, it would seem useful to expand on some personality profiles as you guys know them (no need for shrink jargon).
Both Ken and Reed recognize what they are willing to call "sociopathy" - Ken in other threads as well as here; Reed here:
Quote:
OK, but not eneogh sociopaths exist to fill the Army's need, and many of us "straight arrows" develop sociopathic traits in service.
I conclude that what you must mean as "sociopathic traits" are different from how I would use the term as a lawyer.
If what Reed said was meant, it seems to me that "sociopathic traits" or lack of same is an issue which is far from off-topic - since the support required will vary with the personality profile (METT-TC, to borrow from you guys).
Dude, have you seen my car?
On monday, I'm so gonna find a psychiatrist to explain my sociopathic tendacies in warfare when I positively identify my enemy. It must be something to do with the way my mom treated me as a child.
Reed- despite my lack of humor (my daughter will probably not attend college now that the economic sky has fallen; hopefully, y'all have at least smiled if not laughed so we can get back on topic), I would encourage you to take a knee and allow us to get back to your original discussion.
IMO, Ken is right-outside of his so-called PC crowd. Freudian SME's thought and regard evolved throughout the last 65 years. From shell shock to PTSD to TBIs, advances are being made.
Futhermore, I would assert that the answer to your original question is the typical timeless Ken statement of METT-TC coupled with leadership. A Patreaus/Odierno/Caldwell must be tasked with this very important subject if we hope for some resolve on our wounded (and yes, I have plenty of wounded that I care deeply about).
Initially, Ken was only suggesting that we have a holistic approach during the recruitment process and post-deployment period.
cheers,
mike
Research proves what researchers want it to prove
Quote:
Originally Posted by
reed11b
Research says that is difficult and unlikly. One study that supports that shows higher rates of PTSD among LEO's then comabt vets! Emotions are addictive in a sense. Open those flood gates and it is hard to close them again. I'm as type "B" as one can get, but I have been restless and wanting to go back ever since I deployed to Iraq in '03. I think the "instant" mode switcher is a myth or at the very least, very very rare.
Reed
and little more.
My estimate is that the number of folks who can successfully make that switch is about 30%. Another 30% are not designed for combat or LE like stress (though many can and will do it if forced with varying MH results) and the remainder can hack it and are generally but varyingly successful in tolerating the trauma. Willingness or ability (desire or wishes have little to do with it) to accept violence is the issue; that simple.
Interesting how those estimates track with the 1/3 Rule on wars... :cool: