This is Dave Young's Forum.
Can you really bridge the gap between reality and training? Between traditional karate and real world encounters? Absolutely, we will address in this forum why this transition is necessary and critical for survival, and provide suggestions on how to do this correctly. So come in and feel welcomed, but leave your egos at the door!
Norm wrote:does the author differentiate between a "civilian" killing someone in self defense, and a soldier or police officer killing in the line of duty?
On Killing is somewhat general. On Combat is specific to training professionals to kill.
On average, about 15% of soldiers will fire their weapons in close-quarters combat - even when facing their own death. Only until the field of operant conditioning was applied to combat was the killing rate brought up to the modern levels of around 90%.
But this other 75% that must go through programming to kill are most susceptible to post traumatic stress disorder. It is perfectly "normal" and "healthy" for the body eventually to rebel against killing by having the mind shut down. This is a good thing, and is the reason why species survive. Throughout the animal kingdom, animals will kill without thought for food, but will not engage in the same killing instincts with others of its species. That's part of the self preservation built into a surviving gene pool.
The 15% who have no problem killing and don't seem to be susceptible to PTSD can be found in larger numbers in places like prisons and in the ranks of the special forces. These people are just wired differently. Goleman talks a bit about the phenomenon as well in his book Emotional Intelligence.
While Grossman uses combat in many of his examples, all his ideas can be applied to civilian encounters as well. And everyone who takes the martial side of martial arts seriously needs to understand the field.
One thing the Marines are doing at the Martial Arts Trainer school is to bring in vets of wars past and current to discuss the act of killing. Some of the vets are in their 80s and fought the Japanese on Iwo, Saipan, Oki etc. When asked how it felt to kill a 'Jap' in close combat, the answer was 'pretty good', ' we hated them'. The attack on Pearl Harbor was excellent operant conditioning. Another point was that it was harder to kill Germans as they were 'like us'.
As for civilian style operant training, last fall I had to qualify for a state license at various levels with different firearms. At the basic level, the targets were round bulleyes. For the advanced qual the targets were full size pictures of people. The shoot-don't shoot scenarios used these pictures to simulate really difficult shoot/no shoot decisions under a time constraint. On occasion someone would shoot a 'noncombatant' target. This would elicit really strong negative reactions by the shooter.
The military still uses traditional bulls eye type targets to train marksmanship but has added human shaped pop-up targets for further field training. This part of operant conditioning has contributed to the 90% fire rate we see today. Bill... Weapons Training Battalion has given me a few of these simple but effective targets to use here in Richmond. Unfortunately I do not own a pop-up machine.
Granted that you have some personal input from a Marine. My feedback comes from hundreds of Marines. Some I have trained with and some I have trained. Many have already been deployed and have returned to the US. Some are preparing for their second deployment. None of them have mentioned oil as a cause. None are bitter.
In March one of the Virginia reserve units that I helped train will be returning. I'll get an earfull I'm sure and will share it with the forumites. One part of the MCMAP training is to share experiences... good and bad. And they will.
Also, I'll be spending the first week of March at Quantico for MCMAP 'sustainment' as they refer to it. There will be about 50 Marines from around the world on deck for the Instructor/trainer course so I will certainly get additional inputs.
Regarding the 'war for oil' tales, that is all conjecture. What is not conjecture is the documented abuse of the 'oil for food' program run by the UN. The investigation is documenting widespread fraud and theft, all to the detriment of the Iraqi population.
Let me play devil's advocate for a bit here. I want to undersand Mike's point of view.
In your honest opinion what's the likelihood that a Marine will tell senior officers what he/she really thinks about the battle experience? Contrast that to what you think they might tell you, and then what they would tell a psychologist and researcher like Grossman who would have privacy protection for those he interviewed.
Bill Glasheen wrote:You can't possibly understand why this is so important until you take the initiative and do a little bit of work.
My emphasis added...
I just felt this was important enough to repeat. And to add to it... If you don't do the work to understand it and prepare for it in advance, you may very well waste a significant portion of your life dealing with it. I hope not, but things happen to people whether you expect them to or not, whether you're prepared or not, and reagrdless of how many or few hashmarks you have on your extra-wide, extra-long (tm) blackbelt. And even if you don't ever need to understand it, your students, friends or family may... and you want to be able to help them prepare and understand before it happens as well. As they say, better to be prepared for a disaster that never comes than to be oblivious when the disaster strikes.
Fair question Bill. A PFC would not likely make negative comments to the Commanding Officer. However, they would feel comfortable talking with his/her fire team leader, probably a corporal. The FT leader would share it with his squad leader, a sergeant. The squad leader to the staff NCO, a staff sergeant, and so on. That is the way the chain of command works.
Bad vibes from fire teams would be felt by the CO if he is a good leader. For certain the company Gunny would act as the house mother and then go to the CO or XO.
When we train MCMAP at Quantico or in the field, the rank insignia comes off. Partly it is a practical matter as pins and sharp edges are bad in close contact. Also, it is so enlisted do not defer to seniors. There is no hiding gray hair, but for the most part the training field is an equal opportunity place.
After strenuous activity there is always recovery time. This is when the touchy-feely tie-ins come into play. All are encouraged to share experiences and concerns with no rank on the table and no repercussions. Emotions really come out. The worst story I heard was not about killing or war but from a Marine who just found out his girlfriend had AIDS! Strong advice from the group: Perhaps you should go see the Chaplain for counseling and take his advice. Good outcome by the way. But without drawing that out who knows.
Anyway, it comes out during training or later on in the mess hall or the bar. Then whatever it is dealt with.
Remember this above all else... Marines love each other. It is part of the package. And as a result they take care of each other.
I don’t think Mike was wrong for posting this at all.
There are always more sides to any situation than the party line.
What does his posting it do?
It makes sure we remember the reality of war.
By doing that we do not glorify it.
This does not prevent us from recognizing and appreciating the heroism shown or the sacrifices made. I just received an email the other day from Mark Brelsford about a marine who took multiple hits (and may lose his leg) but he kept fighting and saved members of his team. Mind set – wow.
By sharing the darker side we also make sure the supports are in place for those who will have to live with the job they had to do.
If you shut down the other side’s opinion then I would have to ask what exactly it is these brave folk are trying to spread to Iraq?
Freedom and democracy is the acceptance that there will be those who disagree and they have that right. It is a right being fought for in Iraq regardless of any other motivations some may have had.
Good comments. Before anyone glorifies war and applauds what is being done in the name of democracy, oil, anarchy, depotism...whatever, they should listen and hear what the common soldier has to say. Not to naysay what Rich said about the the PFC telling his immediate superiors what he really thinks and it going up the line, I would have doubts as to whether they really would or not, especially in the marine corps (this is NOT a knock on them). I just think that their mind-set and ego after training would deter this "sign" of weakness perhaps. Again, I don't know, but Rich would know better on that one.
Anyway, in the words of one of your own Rich and Bill Sensei (Gen. Robert E. Lee) "It is well that war is so terrible - we should grow too fond of it!"
I don’t think Mike was wrong for posting this at all.
Mike wrote:...
contrary to popular belief
Well, enough of this feel good stuff from Rich and Bill sensei
Mike then goes on to talk about his conversations with a Marine who clearly articulates classic PTSD. And that is NOT from spontaneous generation.
We have been talking about this on the forums for years. Van also has been talking about classic works from Grossman and Goleman. What is of concern, Rick, is the appearance that some of our own have not done their homework, and then suggest others have been painting a rosey picture when that absolutely has not been the case. On the contrary, it appears that there is a case of selective listening/reading. I've laid out the electronic trail if anyone wants to follow it.
Panther wrote:If you don't do the work to understand it and prepare for it in advance, you may very well waste a significant portion of your life dealing with it. I hope not, but things happen to people whether you expect them to or not, whether you're prepared or not, and reagrdless of how many or few hashmarks you have on your extra-wide, extra-long (tm) blackbelt. And even if you don't ever need to understand it, your students, friends or family may... and you want to be able to help them prepare and understand before it happens as well. As they say, better to be prepared for a disaster that never comes than to be oblivious when the disaster strikes.
The issue isn't just dealing with the aftermath of combat or even a simple assault. For the average karateka, the issue is understanding that a student must engage in more than physical training to prepare for deadly encounters. The average individual is mentally unprepared to do what is necessary even to defend him or herself when their very life is threatened. And after an assault, the assault has just begun. If anyone bothered to read the thread I linked folks to (on the NEJM article), I talked about my own anecdote of a female student who successfully defended herself from rape using a technique I taught her in class the week earlier, and subsequently self destructed in the aftermath of the event.
This isn't about me, or Mike, or Rich, or anyone else. It's a serious matter that is very much part of the martial equation. I agree, Rick, that it was a good thing for Mike to post. But I'm not yet convinced that Mike or others understand why.
A wise man once said that the teacher will be there when the student is ready. Hopefully that won't be too late.
It would be great if Mark Brelsford would join in with us on this thread. Mark is a 'Gunny' and most certainly has had to deal with many unpleasent situations firsthand.
Just because people on the forum don't agree with the information that some on the forum have the time to dig out, information, btw, which seems to advocate their way of thinking for the most part, doesn't mean they are wrong or uninformed.
Bill,
I suggest you go back on your own trail of posts and look at the pictures that can one can imply as rosy before you say that people have not done their homework. Some people just don't like the homework you are assigning. I'd rather get a more middle-of-the-road look at things rather than the platform that you and Van seem to take. That, btw, is no insult at either of you (I'm sure you know that). You guys are clearly to the right of things, which I and others don't happen to buy most times. You should know more than most that you can find any information you want to justify your argument if you look hard enough. The problem I see is that you find what you want and at times dismiss the obvious (i.e. Bush's reason for entering into Iraq, etc.), even when it's in the news almost every day. You may link me with the Bleeding Heart Liberals of Ted Kennedy just because I'm from Mass if you like, but listen to what I'm saying before you say I haven't done my homework.
BTW, regarding the topic at hand, here is a nice article to read. Don't worry Bill, this homework is not mandatory and no points will be deducted ;-0
Back From Iraq -- and Out on the Streets
By Alexandra Marks, The Christian Science Monitor
NEW YORK - Veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts are now showing up in the nation's homeless shelters.
While the numbers are still small, they're steadily rising, and raising alarms in both the homeless and veterans' communities. The concern is that these returning veterans - some of whom can't find jobs after leaving the military, others of whom are still struggling psychologically with the war - may be just the beginning of an influx of new veterans in need. Currently, there are 150,000 troops in Iraq and 16,000 in Afghanistan. More than 130,000 have already served and returned home.
So far, dozens of them, like Herold Noel, a married father of three, have found themselves sleeping on the streets, on friends' couches, or in their cars within weeks of returning home. Two years ago, Black Veterans for Social Justice (BVSJ) in the borough of Brooklyn, saw only a handful of recent returnees. Now the group is aiding more than 100 Iraq veterans, 30 of whom are homeless.
"It's horrible to put your life on the line and then come back home to nothing, that's what I came home to: nothing. I didn't know where to go or where to turn," says Mr. Noel. "I thought I was alone, but I found out there are a whole lot of other soldiers in the same situation. Now I want people to know what's really going on."
After the Vietnam War, tens of thousands of veterans came home to a hostile culture that offered little gratitude and inadequate services, particularly to deal with the stresses of war. As a result, tens of thousands of Vietnam veterans still struggle with homelessness and drug addiction.
Veterans from the Iraq and Afghanistan wars are coming home to a very different America. While the Iraq war remains controversial, there is almost unanimous support for the soldiers overseas. And in the years since Vietnam, more than 250 nonprofit veterans' service organizations have sprouted up, many of them created by people like Peter Cameron, a Vietnam veteran who is determined that what happened to his fellow soldiers will not happen again.
But he and dozens of other veterans' service providers are concerned by the increasing numbers of new veterans ending up on streets and in shelters.
Part of the reason for these new veterans' struggles is that housing costs have skyrocketed at the same time real wages have remained relatively stable, often putting rental prices out of reach. And for many, there is a gap of months, sometimes years, between when military benefits end and veterans benefits begin.
"We are very much committed to helping veterans coming back from this war," says Mr. Cameron, executive director of Vietnam Veterans of California. "But the [Department of Veterans Affairs] already has needs it can't meet and there's a lot of fear out there that programs are going to be cut even further."
Beyond the yellow ribbons
Both the Veterans Administration and private veterans service organizations are already stretched, providing services for veterans of previous conflicts. For instance, while an estimated 500,000 veterans were homeless at some time during 2004, the VA had the resources to tend to only 100,000 of them.
"You can have all of the yellow ribbons on cars that say 'Support Our Troops' that you want, but it's when they take off the uniform and transition back to civilian life that they need support the most," says Linda Boone, executive director of The National Coalition for Homeless Veterans.
After the Vietnam conflict, it was nine to 12 years before veterans began showing up at homeless shelters in large numbers. In part, that's because the trauma they experienced during combat took time to surface, according to one Vietnam veteran who's now a service provider. Doctors refer to the phenomenon as post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).
A recent study published by the New England Journal of Medicine found that 15 to 17 percent of Iraq vets meet "the screening criteria for major depression, generalized anxiety, or PTSD." Of those, only 23 to 40 percent are seeking help - in part because so many others fear the stigma of having a mental disorder.
Many veterans' service providers say they're surprised to see so many Iraq veterans needing help so soon.
More From the Monitor
· Holiday Woes Signal Trouble for Airlines
· New Push for Tsunami-Alert System
· New Chapter in Holocaust Justice
"This kind of inner city, urban guerrilla warfare that these veterans are facing probably accelerates mental-health problems," says Yogin Ricardo Singh, director of the Homeless Veterans Reintegration Program at BVSJ. "And then there's the soldier's mentality: Asking for help is like saying, 'I've failed a mission.' It's very hard for them to do."
Beyond PTSD and high housing costs, many veterans also face an income void, as they search for new jobs or wait for their veterans benefits to kick in.
When Mr. Noel was discharged in December of 2003, he and his family had been living in base housing in Georgia. Since they were no longer eligible to live there, they began the search for a new home. But Noel had trouble landing a job and the family moved to New York, hoping for help from a family member. Eventually, they split up: Noel's wife and infant child moved in with his sister-in-law, and his twins were sent to relatives in Florida. Noel slept in his car, on the streets, and on friend's couches.
Last spring he was diagnosed with PTSD, and though he's currently in treatment, his disability claim is still being processed. Unable to keep a job so far, he's had no steady income, although an anonymous donor provided money for him to take an apartment last week. He expects his family to join him soon.
'Nobody understood ... the way I was'
Nicole Goodwin is another vet diagnosed with PTSD who has yet to receive disability benefits. Unable to stay with her mother, she soon found herself walking the streets of New York, with a backpack full of her belongings and her 1-year-old daughter held close.
"When I first got back I just wanted to jump into a job and forget about Iraq, but the culture shock from the military to the civilian world hit me," she says. "I was depressed for months. I couldn't sleep. I couldn't eat. The worst thing wasn't the war, it was coming back, because nobody understood why I was the way I was."
Ms. Goodwin was determined not to sleep on the streets, and so eventually went into the New York City shelter system where, after being shuffled from shelter to shelter, she was told she was ineligible for help. But media attention changed that, and she was able to obtain a rent voucher. With others' generosity, she also found a job. She's now attending college and working with other veterans who are determined to go to Washington with their stories.
"When soldiers get back, they should still be considered military until they can get on their feet," she says. "It's a month-to-month process, trying to actually function again. It's not easy, it takes time."
02-08-05 06:35 EST
Copyright 2005 The Christian Science Monitor. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wouldn't it be nice if president bush could spend some of that 1 billion per week on these veterans who need help?
Rick Wilson wrote:If you shut down the other side’s opinion then I would have to ask what exactly it is these brave folk are trying to spread to Iraq?
Freedom and democracy is the acceptance that there will be those who disagree and they have that right. It is a right being fought for in Iraq regardless of any other motivations some may have had.
Completely agree that it is a right and that it is what is being fought for in Iraq regardless of any other motivations some may have had.
I watch this forum, but for a number of reasons, I have "tempered" my input to this forum over the years. There is no hiding my libertarian politics or my national pride, but I have intentionally tried to establish rules and give both sides the opportunity to voice their views.
The only times I have "shut down" any side were when things got out of hand, threats (veiled or otherwise) were made, insults were thrown, or general disrespect was shown. (or when someone who has put a position forth that has thoroughly been debunked on a given subject, simply refuses to acknowledge that their position has no more credibility from that basis and continues to repeat the same false/distorted facts without further research on the given subject... that's just a waste of time, effort and bandwidth that we don't need.) However, even in those cases where someone has started to get overly emotional (which happens to everyone sometimes) I have always made an attempt to reach out to ALL parties involved to calm people down so that no axe has to be wielded. Discourse, discussion, debate... that's what our Constitutional Republic is all about. Protecting individual freedoms, liberties and rights... that's what it's all about. Having someone go off the deep-end and start name-calling, being rude/disrespectful, threatening, insulting, etc. is not what this is about. The rules are clear on that. (and contrary to popular belief in some circles, there are folks from both sides of the political spectrum that you don't see on this forum anymore because they just couldn't seem to follow my simple requests to "play nice"... )
My point in posting on this thread has nothing to do with agreeing or disagreeing with the soldiers' stories coming back... and everything to do with PTSD and surviving the aftermath of a violent situation. I read the original post and my first thought had nothing at all to do with the war and everything to do with know that this person needed to talk with a trained professional that understands PTSD. (I also know that you can find a "trained professional" that really doesn't have a clue about PTSD and it does more harm than good, so that crossed my mind as well...) Then, following the thread, I felt like that point was getting lost and also that it is a subject/point that many have tried to tell others about on these forums for years. So I posted...
This post, on the other hand, is to let folks know what I try to let folks know a lot here...
Discuss, Debate, Disagree... But... "Play nice" and follow the rules.
Doom and gloom? The reality of the situation IS doom and gloom! One election does not a democracy make! Our leaders have engaged us in a civil war on false pretenses and now through some magical sleight of hand you have twisted the facts into a righteous march for truth, justice and the American way.
Why did the United States go to war in Iraq based on misleading -- if not false and fraudulent -- evidence? Instead of singing her academic praises and ladder climbing abilities, why not hold Rice accountable misleading the American people into thinking there was a connection between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaida before September 11th? Why did we divert valuable resources and intelligence personnel to Iraq, taking them away from Afghanistan and the pursuit of Osama bin Laden? And speaking of Osama.....??????????????
You and President George Bush have pronounced the election in Iraq a success. "The world is hearing the voice of freedom from the center of the Middle East," GW said. Since this is more or less what he was bound to say anyway, the only surprise is that he waited a few hours after the polls had closed before saying it. It's a funny sort of freedom where candidates cannot campaign openly for fear of their lives and where, despite the tightest security that the occupation armies and the Iraqi forces can provide - curfews, banning cars from the streets, intensive searches at polling stations, etc - MORE THAN 40 PEOPLE still die. Violence on that scale is by no means unusual at election time in other parts of the world. The problem in Iraq, though, is that such violence is not a one-off. It is a DAILY, occurrence and nobody realistically expects it to subside any time soon.
None of this is to disparage the efforts of millions of Iraqis who turned out to vote in defiance of threats from the insurgents, but portrayals of the election as "historic" are way off mark: all the old problems remain. The election has done nothing to help resolve the question of Iraq's ethnic and religious divisions - particularly that of the disaffected Sunni Arab minority. If anything, it has further institutionalized these divisions. It is clear that the emerging system of political parties is based around interest groups and men of influence rather than debates about policy - a system that may look vaguely democratic on the outside but is actually a barrier to genuine democracy.
Much of this is the fault of the Bush administration which, for its own reasons, has turned the ballot box into a symbol of freedom around the world without paying much attention to the slow and laborious business of creating the civil institutions that make elections meaningful.
Over the next few months, the new Iraqi parliament is supposed to draft a permanent constitution which, among other things, will have to grapple with the thorny issues of federalism and the role of Islam in the state - issues that the Americans ducked before handing over sovereignty. Arguments about the constitution could bring Iraq to the crunch point - possibly with fatal consequences - or, more likely, the parliament will come up with another fudge, putting off the crunch (as the Americans did) for another day.
If the Iraqis are lucky, they may eventually arrive at the corrupt fig-leaf sort of democracy that flourishes in other Arab states such as Egypt. The sort of democracy where elections change nothing and their results are always a foregone conclusion. On the other hand, they may not be so fortunate.
This isn't about being for Kennedy or Kerry. This isn't about living in a Red or Blue state. It's about pulling your self away from the Combat reruns on cable television and seeing reality. The reality is the "liberation" of Iraq is still a long, long way off while we continue to daily bury our sons and daughters. If that isn't a pathetic and gloomy situation, what is?
You two want to talk politics. Right now I don't give a tinker's damn. Mike's original post alarms me for many reasons.
Mike wrote:He told me all the same kind of war stories that come out of every war I'm sure. For example, his having to kill Iraqis who were sleeping in a house without warning because they were afraid of who might be hiding under one of the blankets. Or, the killing by his own two hands of a family or five with a bazooka because they wouldn't leave their house. This included three children. There is more, but I'm sure you all get the picture.
I feel real bad for him because he tells me that he, or any of his company, get a good night sleeps anymore, even as they are back home. The nightmares, he's told, could be with him for a long time.
What I see here are the following:
1) The typical urban warfare that we know is happening because a combination of al qaeda extremists and former Baathists are using innocents as human shields to wage both war and homicide.
2) Classic PTSD that comes from ANY act of killing or violence.
This then is fodder for a political discussion. I'm sorry to disappoint you two, but I don't want to play that game right now.
Our soldiers - and now Iraqis themselves - have an incredibly difficult job to do. They are facing the same folks who brought you 9/11. (Predominantly al Zarqawi et al, who were trained by Bin Laden and entered the country before the U.S. invasion. I'll supply references if you desire.) They also are facing a minority Sunni group who once dominated and terrorized an entire population, and didn't think twice about gassing women and children in the north or filling mass graves in the south. Now they perform ritualistic beheading for our consumption, and convince unwitting religious zealots to use themselves as human bombs to kill their own citizens en masse. Even the Iraqis see this now as they take over security of their own country and see Iraqis as the victims of this terrorist violence.
A soldier has to do what a soldier has to do. If you need to rid an entire city (Fallujah) of an al-Zarqawi-led cancer, and your men are getting killed while performing first aid on boobytraped wounded insurgents, and the insurgents are firing RPGs from inside mosques, you have to take severe measures. This means sometimes you kill an entire innocent family who refuses to leave their home when you give them every opportunity to do so. And this is a terrible, terrible psychological cost for everyone. Make no mistake about it.
This is what I think, if you haven't already figured it out.
1) When in doubt, I want our troops to come home at the end of the day.
2) When the troops come home, I don't give a rat's ass what they are saying. I see through the talk, and see people suffering. These people need help. They don't need to be exploited for personal gain.
Read Grossman.
Read the research I cited in the New England Journal of Medicine. Is that a right-wing publication? Puuuleeeezzzee!
This is neither right-wing nor left-wing. This is war. This is violence. This is facing the grim reaper, whether by choice or not. There is a reality here that is being ignored because some want this to be a political discussion. And IMO it is at the expense of the health of those who sacrificed the most, and at the expense of an opportunity to learn more about the true nature of the martial act.
