Want a free assault rifle, provided by the government?

If you really want to exercise your "Second Amendment |right", then you can get a free assault rifle and all those other military toys.

The Universal Soldier

From the Trenches

Military Suicides - It's not About Multiple Deployments

The Moderate Voice published an interesting article about military suicides and how the NRA actually presents an obstacle towards addressing the problem.  But the part I found most interesting was the simple debunking of that famous lie that the problem is due to the stress of multiple deployments.

As discussed here, in trying to find reasons or causes for the alarming upward trend in military suicides, TIME Magazine reporters Mark Thompson and Nancy Gibbs suggest that combat trauma alone can’t account for the trend and offer the following data:

Nearly a third of the suicides from 2005 to 2010 were among troops who had never deployed; 43% had deployed only once. Only 8.5% had deployed three or four times. Enlisted service members are more likely to kill themselves than officers, and 18-to-24-year-olds more likely than older troops. Two-thirds do it by gunshot; 1 in 5 hangs himself. And it’s almost always him: nearly 95% of cases are male. A majority are married.

“Two-thirds do it by gunshot.” Of course, you say. Our military are trained to use guns, they are “the tool of their trade,” troops have access to guns and many personally own firearms in their homes.

Naturally, Defense and military leaders are doing everything within their power to prevent or at least reduce this horrible, unnecessary loss life among the troops.

As part of what these leaders are doing to combat the suicide “epidemic,” they would like to talk to our servicemen and women who own a personal firearm and live off post.

There is one small catch, however. A relatively new law backed by the National Rifle Association (NRA) seems to prevent them from talking to these servicemembers.

Making America Safer

via Fuck Conservatives 

An Army Under the Influence

via The Town Scryer

"The pharmacy consultant for the Army surgeon general says the military's use of the drugs is comparable to that in the civilian world. "It's not that we're using them more frequently or any differently," said Col. Carol Labadie. "As with any medication, you have to look at weighing the risk versus the benefits of somebody going on a medication."

The first problem that comes to mind with the Colonel's justification is the army is comprised of young healthy men. This is not a demographic that should be compared to the civilian population at large. Young healthy people don't need the medications for stress or anything else that their older counterparts might.

The second thing is this. During Viet Nam illegal drug abuse was rampant. Heroin was extremely cheap and extremely available. Many used it to cope with the stress. The same must be true in Afghanistan today where a single dose of the drug costs 20 cents. Although we don't hear about it, I would imagine in addition to the awful prescription drug abuse, there's a good bit of illegal substance abuse as well.

What's your opinion?  Is the military keeping these things under wraps? Are they not only using our young men as cannon fodder but drugging them along the way?  Would this account for some of the terrible reports of high suicide rates?

What's your opinion?  Please leave a comment.

Military Suicides

The standard explanation for years has been to blame the high suicide rate on multiple deployments. It seems that's just not the case. From the New York Times about a year ago.

Significantly, the report said that 79 percent of the soldiers who committed suicide had had only one deployment, or had not deployed at all. 

According to the Army, roughly 20 out of 100,000 soldiers have killed themselves, compared with a rate of roughly 19 out of 100,000 for the civilian population. 

Just this week, Stars and Stripes reported this:

In a finding suggesting powerful psychiatric benefits for a component of fish oil, a study published Wednesday has linked military suicides to low levels of docosahexaenoic acid and found that service personnel with higher levels of DHA in their blood were less likely to take their own lives.

I'll bet there are about a dozen other theories floating around too.

A Philly.com article described some of the newer efforts being undertaken.

The latest military and civilian efforts range from 24-hour-a-day psychological counseling and suicide hotlines, including two by the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey, to chaplain visits and a new Pentagon video game, released in January, providing a virtual post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) experience to explore the symptoms and causes of combat trauma.

What's your opinion? Do you have personal experience with this terrible problem? Do you have another theory to explain the phenomenon?

One thing I thought is, could the troops in the military, say over the last couple decades, be over-medicated? Couldn't improper diagnoses and too-freely-dispensed meds actually exacerbate the problem? Just an idea.

Another possibility for me, which might explain the high number of suicides experienced during the Viet Nam War, is the declining belief in what we're doing as a country. Doesn't the anti-war sentiment trickle down into the very rank and file? Some might experience qualms of conscience, others feelings of not being properly appreciated and supported. It could lead to depression and despair in some cases. Just another idea.

I'd like to know what you think. Please leave a comment.

The Kobayashi Maru Test and Military Honour

Since MikeB is a trekkie, and I'm feeling lazy--Here's another post from my blog:

Someone just told me about the Kobayashi Maru Test from the Star Trek Series. Since I am not a trekkie, I may as well rip off the Wikipedia article's description of the test:

The Kobayashi Maru is a test in the fictional universe of Star Trek. It is a Starfleet training exercise designed to test the character of cadets in the command track at Starfleet Academy. The Kobayashi Maru test was first depicted in the opening scene of the film Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan and also appears in the 2009 film Star Trek. The test's name is occasionally used among Star Trek fans or those familiar with the series to describe a no-win scenario.

Rescuing the civilian vessel Kobayashi Maru is the notional primary goal in a simulated battle with the Klingons. The ship is disabled and the approaching cadet crew must decide whether or not to attempt rescue of the Kobayashi Maru crew – potentially endangering their own ship and lives – or leave the Kobayashi Maru to certain destruction. The difficult decision to assist the Kobayashi Maru revolves around the issue of the disabled ship's location being in the Klingon Neutral Zone, as entering the zone would be in violation of the Organian Peace Treaty.

While I am not a trekkie, I am a former military officer, which takes me to the next part of the story about test:

[caption id="" align="alignright" width="125" caption="This man will personally kick the arse of anyone who cheated at a Military Academy."][/caption]

James T. Kirk took the test three times while at Starfleet Academy. Prior to his third attempt, Kirk surreptitiously reprogrammed the simulator so that it was possible to rescue the freighter. This fact finally comes out in Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, as Kirk, Saavik and others appear marooned, near death. Saavik's response is, "Then you never faced that situation. Faced death." Kirk replies, "I don't believe in the no-win scenario." Despite having cheated, Kirk had been awarded a commendation for "original thinking."

Now, I know this is the movies, which is why the coming rant may seem odd.

In reality, Kirk would have been tossed out of the Academy on his arse for having cheated. If he did end up on a starship, he would more likely be a messmate with Lister and Rimmer on the Red Dwarf. This comes from Ethics and the Military:

He has integrity if his interest in the good of the Service is at all times greater than his personal pride, and when he holds himself to the same line of duty when unobserved as he would follow if all of his superiors were present.

Brigadier General S.L.A. Marshall, The Armed Forces Officer, 1950

The concepts of honor and integrity are reflected in the statement of core values of the armed services and provide the underpinnings of the military way of life. The occasional perception of misconduct among military personnel challenges the notion that the military holds itself to high ethical standards. In an effort to respond to media criticism and with an eye toward implementing a continuing process of self-examination, military writers, theorists, and professionals discuss ways in which the military can ensure that personnel adhere to high standards of accountability. Those standards are exemplified in behavior in everyday life as well as under the stress of combat. They are reflected in the military mind-set --the ways in which personnel not only relate to one another, but, also, in the manner in which they contribute to the decision making process, exercise leadership roles, and interpret significant and timely world events. Concerns range from an examination of honor codes at the service academies to consideration of more cosmic matters such as nuclear deterrence, the use of biological and chemical warfare, the development of just war doctrine, and the ethics of intervention. The Gulf War and recent peacekeeping initiatives did much to stimulate debate and discussion on a host of issues relating to ethical dilemmas and the ethical climate of the armed forces.

In other words, the military sets high standards for ethics. The US Military Academies have Honour Codes and I am going to take from the USMA's code the example of cheating:

CHEATING: A violation of cheating would occur if a Cadet fraudulently acted out of self-interest or assisted another to do so with the intent to gain or to give an unfair advantage. Cheating includes such acts as plagiarism (presenting someone else's ideas, words, data, or work as one's own without documentation), misrepresentation (failing to document the assistance of another in the preparation, revision, or proofreading of an assignment), and using unauthorized notes.

Three rules of thumb from the USMA's Honour Code are:

1. Does this action attempt to deceive anyone or allow anyone to be deceived?
2. Does this action gain or allow gain of a privilege or advantage to which I or someone else would not otherwise be entitled?
3. Would I be unsatisfied by the outcome if I were on the receiving end of this action?

I think that Kirk's actions fit quite well into rule (2).

So, rather than being a top Star Fleet commander who was awarded a commendation for "original thinking", Kirk would have been disgraced by his actions in the real world. Even if the Academy tolerated his actions, I have serious doubts that the other cadets and officers would have.

But, it's just a movie.

The Stars and Stripes

Il Principe has published a fascinating indictment of the main stream media.

The institution of the military is one of the most trusted and respected institutions in America and the newspaper The Stars and Stripes, is considered the official record of the U.S. Armed Forces. Although The Stars and Stripes newspaper may appear to be the mouthpiece for the Pentagon and would never report anything negative about the military, a recent news story first reported by the Stars and Stripes dispels all these preconceptions and biased opinions.

I admit, I'm certainly one who thought exactly this way. I find it absolutely fascinating that a story like this could break first in the Stars and Stripes.

The story reported by the Stars and Stripes involves a private corporation, The Rendon Group, who was hired by the Pentagon to produce background profiles on journalists covering the war. While this story was alarming enough, making the issue more disturbing is the total lack of reporting the story has had in the mainstream press.

One result of the assessments of war correspondents is, in some cases, military commanders determined whether to imbed journalists with their troops based on the Rendon Group evaluation. This may have slanted the entire world perception of the wars.

The Prince's conclusion about why this happened is fascinating too. He says it indicates a growing discontent among the military itself as to the management of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

What's your opinion? Do you find it strange that a story like this came out in the Stars and Stripes instead of, let's say, CNN? What about that discontent among military personnel? Is that becoming a problem or is the fact that we've got an all volunteer military ensuring that mainly those who agree with the policies are joining?

What's your opinion?

Military Suicide Rate Going Up

A few months ago we discussed the record year for Army suicides in 2008. Now it seems it's getting worse. CNN reports.

A major United States military post is shutting down for three days following a rash of suicides, the post announced.

Fort Campbell, home of the Army's 101st Airborne Division, is holding a three-day "suicide stand-down training event" starting Wednesday -- the second one it has held this year, a post spokeswoman told CNN.

At least 11 deaths of Fort Campbell soldiers this year are confirmed or suspected suicides, spokeswoman Kelly Tyler said. That's out of 64 confirmed or suspected suicides in the entire Army, according to official statistics. At that rate, the Army is on pace for a record number of suicides this year.

A big focus of the three-day event will be to convince the young soldiers that asking for help is not inconsistent with the other traditional values that have been drummed into them, things like strength and honor. It is a sign of strength, the general will tell them, when they reach out for help.

Do you think that approach will work? Is it possible for young men, trained the way they are for war in Iraq and Afghanistan, to incorporate these mental health principles into their lifestyle? I don't think so.

What's your opinion? It brings up the old questions of personal responsibility and individual freedom. Do you think those 11 soldiers who committed suicide on Fort Campbell this year had sound enough minds to make that decision? Did they enjoy personal freedom of choice the way everyone else does? I don't think so.

I think those poor guys were victims of a system that swallowed them up and crushed the life out of them. They probably suffered from terrible depression or fear or isolation, or perhaps all three, all the while trying to fake it and fit in. It's tragic and sad and something should be done about it. My heart goes out to their families and loved ones.

What's your opinion? What can be done about this terrible ongoing tragedy?

Please leave a comment.

Evangelizing or Proselytizing

Coonsey's World has a post up today which highlights a very controversial situation in the U.S. military. What do you think about this? Please leave us your opinion.

Military Execution Stayed

CNN reports that the first military execution in 47 years has been stayed.

A federal judge has stayed what would be the nation's first military execution since 1961, saying the U.S. soldier -- who was convicted of rape and murder two decades ago -- should have more time to pursue a federal appeal.

Pvt. Ronald Gray has been on the military's death row at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, since 1988. A court-martial panel sitting at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, unanimously convicted him of committing two murders and other crimes in the Fayetteville, North Carolina, area and sentenced him to death.

Gray was scheduled to die by lethal injection on December 10th, but has received a stay by U.S. District Judge Richard Rogers of Kansas so that Gray can pursue his federal appeal. The last time we discussed this case, our friend Bob S. made the following observation:

So, despite the fact that in civilian prisons beatings are common, male on male rape is common, that prisoners are occasionally abused by guards; all this cruelty combined with caging a man up for his lifetime is okay with you....because you are upset over the death penalty.

Well, my answer is simple: for me abolishing the death penalty is non-negotiable. As far as the conditions prisoners are faced with, something should be done about that, no question, something other than killing them.

What's your opinion?