Troop Depression on the Rise in Afghanistan - WTF are we doing, again?

[Athena]

Troop depression on rise in Afghanistan
By PAULINE JELINEK, Associated Press Writer
Thu Mar 6, 6:55 AM ET

WASHINGTON - U.S. troop morale improved in Iraq last year, but soldiers fighting in Afghanistan suffered more depression as violence there worsened, an Army mental health report says.

And in a recurring theme for a force strained by its seventh year at war, the annual battlefield study found once again that soldiers on their third and fourth tours of duty had sharply greater rates of mental health problems than those on their first or second deployments, according to several officials familiar with the report.

The report was drawn from the work of a team of mental health experts who traveled to the wars last fall and surveyed more than 2,200 soldiers in Iraq and nearly 900 in Afghanistan. In the fifth such effort, the team also gathered information from more than 400 medical professionals, chaplains, psychiatrists, psychologists and other mental health workers serving with the troops.

It was unclear how the new data might relate to a recent report showing that as many as 121 Army soldiers committed suicide in 2007, an increase of about 20 percent over the year before. The preliminary figures released in January said that there were 89 confirmed suicides last year and 32 deaths that were suspected suicides and still under investigation.

Soldiers in Afghanistan had rates of mental health problems similar to those in Iraq in 2007 with the exception of depression, officials said the new study showed. The percentage reporting depression in Afghanistan was higher than that in Iraq, and mental health problems in general were higher than they had previously been in Afghanistan.

Though U.S. troops suffered their highest level of casualties in both campaigns last year, that came as violence was decreasing in the five-year-old Iraq conflict and increasing in Afghanistan, now in its seventh year.

Troops' mental health problems are linked directly to the amount of exposure they have to combat, and officials said that last year the level of violence was more pronounced in some places of Afghanistan than it was in Iraq. Some 83 percent of soldiers in Afghanistan reported being exposed to mortar fire and similar action as fighting heated up against Taliban and al-Qaida fighters, compared with 72 percent in Iraq, according to the study.

Full story (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080306/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/troops_mental_health;_ylt=AvmkEaGB9RtRSqh__tvYwJay Fz4D)

-----------

Okay, so, we're there and we're not pulling out any time soon. I get it. But what the fuck are we trying to do and why isn't it working? Why are we seeing increased violence in Afghanistan?

Our boys are in their third and fourth tours in lots of cases. Is our goal to simply perpetually occupy these countries, or are we working toward a goal?

[swivel]

Maybe we could solve two problems in Afghanistan at once. You see... they have these Opium crops that we would like to get rid of....


:666:

[gprime]

It is simple really. Most of the Taliban fighters fled into Pakistan and regrouped, readying to retake their land. They were never destroyed, just displaced. And so now, American forces want to confront them. Only problem is, the US military is very careful in its efforts to minimize civilian casualties. As such, we cannot efficiently and permanently crush them. I supported, and still do, both wars. But I happen to think we need to give less of a damn about world opinion and civilian lives, and more about winning the war in an affordable and quick way.

[Athena]

It is simple really. Most of the Taliban fighters fled into Pakistan and regrouped, readying to retake their land. They were never destroyed, just displaced. And so now, American forces want to confront them. Only problem is, the US military is very careful in its efforts to minimize civilian casualties. As such, we cannot efficiently and permanently crush them. I supported, and still do, both wars. But I happen to think we need to give less of a damn about world opinion and civilian lives, and more about winning the war in an affordable and quick way.

I support the war in Afghanistan and share your sentiment regarding how we ought to go about winning. As for the war in Iraq...Eh, we're in there, aren't we? What does it matter what I think? We ought to quit pussy-footing around and establish authority there.

[swivel]

It is simple really. Most of the Taliban fighters fled into Pakistan and regrouped, readying to retake their land. They were never destroyed, just displaced. And so now, American forces want to confront them. Only problem is, the US military is very careful in its efforts to minimize civilian casualties. As such, we cannot efficiently and permanently crush them. I supported, and still do, both wars. But I happen to think we need to give less of a damn about world opinion and civilian lives, and more about winning the war in an affordable and quick way.

Hear! Hear!

In this case, the eggs are already broken. We either make an omelet, or it all goes to waste!

[I am Legend]

It is simple really. Most of the Taliban fighters fled into Pakistan and regrouped, readying to retake their land. They were never destroyed, just displaced. And so now, American forces want to confront them. Only problem is, the US military is very careful in its efforts to minimize civilian casualties. As such, we cannot efficiently and permanently crush them. I supported, and still do, both wars. But I happen to think we need to give less of a damn about world opinion and civilian lives, and more about winning the war in an affordable and quick way.


basically the point i was going to make. the main problem with troops is having to deal with the restrictive ROE after the initial conflict is over. The ROE for a "war" is different than the ROE for an occupation, problem is, the other guys dont have an ROE, they just go the fuck off whenever they can.

[swivel]

basically the point i was going to make. the main problem with troops is having to deal with the restrictive ROE after the initial conflict is over. The ROE for a "war" is different than the ROE for an occupation, problem is, the other guys dont have an ROE, they just go the fuck off whenever they can.

Yeah. Wars are much more humane, but so is the way civilians die. And it is hard to tell if it is a good thing or not. When I see people spending the last 5-10 years of their lives in and out of hospitals, driving their children's country into debt, and living an extended, but restricted life, I can't tell if it is a good thing or not.

Same with these new, civil, wars. It feels like we are pulling a tooth slowly, like a constant, dull pain is better than a short, severe one. It is really hard to weigh the two.

[Pirelli Jones]

And so now, American forces want to confront them.

Absolutely, nothing cures the blues like a 60-round belt and solid cheek to buttstock weld. Only one firm trigger squeeze away from utopia.

[I am Legend]

if the media wasnt a factor, the answer is easy because then you dont have our news programs blasting all those images into the mass moronicals living rooms nightly, slowly trying to swing opinions politically after the fact. better to pull that tooth than let it slowly rot itself out. but, when the moronicals have to watch that tooth get pulled, they cry out to let it rot.

civilian casualties are a fact of war. it sucks, but it is what it is. trying to win a conflict by pretending its a game of monopoly is useless, costs more in lives and money in the long run, and sends a message that implies weakness.

personally, i say " save lives, drop bigger bombs".

[Athena]

I don't think the media is so much to blame, personally. The fact of the matter is, the government has the power to dispatch an enemy as quickly and easily as it desires, despite the general public's opinion. Unfortunately, that government is comprised of career politicians. To them, the right thing comes third to the popular thing, which the lucrative thing tends to come second to.

The military needs to just do what needs to be done. I may be a Ron Paul fan, but I'm not 100% in line with his foreign policy. I do agree that we don't need military posts in the majority of nations on this planet, but, by god, when people are being screwed over, we have a responsibility as the toughest sons of bitches around to step in and control things. Is it our job? No. But it's the right thing to do.

I doubt that anyone is too aware of my ethnicity. On my mother's side of the family, I'm Armenian. Her peeps immigrated here after surviving the march to the Syrian desert from Armenia. They had everything stripped from them, and we lost many, all because the Young Turks were fucking bastards. That shit doesn't get forgotten. I, a multi-generational descendant, still feel its effects. On my father's side, I'm Croatian. Yes, the Croats sided with the Nazis during WWII. But they weren't exactly jumping at the chance. It was a kill-or-be-killed engagement...One that every self-respecting Croat regrets as deeply as our blood flows.

My point is, when heinous shit is going down, if we're not there to halt it, then who? And we need to use brutal means by which to assume control. Had a few thousand Armenians been killed in order for the Turks to be stopped by a third party, I can't help but feel like it would have been FAR less detrimental than what went down. The fact remains - all's fair in love and war.

Furthermore, let's not forget that complacency encourages depravity. Hitler himself cited the Armenian Genocide and with it, the nonexistant response of the rest of the world, when encouraging his followers to embark on the most known massacre of our modern era when he allegedly implored his followers to kill without mercy, for "who still talks nowadays of the extermination of the Armenians?"

Can we say that Hitler would have thought twice had someone stepped in to assist the Armenians? No...But perhaps the world could have slept more easily having known it tried.

If we were not spread paper thin throughout dozens of countries who don't need our presence, we could be dealing with Darfur right now. When the Liberians laid mangled bodies outside our embassy in Monrovia, we could have done more than turn a blind eye.

I don't believe that our efforts should be halted. I believe they should be focused.

/rant

[gprime]

The right thing to do? Absolutely not. We should never enter a war based on moral reasons, which is something I had assumed you'd agreed with, since there is no objective morality. Wars, in the post-colonial age at least, are supposed to be about security. If you want to have the CIA take down individual leaders, I'm fine with that. But that is far less involved than wasting weapons or soldiers.

[swivel]

We should never enter a war based on moral reasons

So, we should have declared war on Japan, but not on Germany, after Pearl Harbor? What if we had never been attacked at all, we should have crossed our arms while Hitler took Europe and exterminated the Jews?

By your reasoning, the best thing we could have done is become Hitler's ally, since this would increase our security. (him backstabbing Russia, notwithstanding)

[gprime]

So, we should have declared war on Japan, but not on Germany, after Pearl Harbor? What if we had never been attacked at all, we should have crossed our arms while Hitler took Europe and exterminated the Jews?

By your reasoning, the best thing we could have done is become Hitler's ally, since this would increase our security. (him backstabbing Russia, notwithstanding)

I think we should have attacked Germany, but not based on moral reasons. Rather, his alliance with Japan, who had attacked us, combined with his attacks on our French and British allies, made it legitimate for us to enter the war.

[swivel]

I think we should have attacked Germany, but not based on moral reasons. Rather, his alliance with Japan, who had attacked us, combined with his attacks on our French and British allies, made it legitimate for us to enter the war.

That was the easy question. Now, look back and answer the hard one.

If we weren't attacked, and we saw Hitler taking over Europe, and he was very clear that he had no ambitions across the vast oceans, and he was open about his desire to kill European Jews, would the mass suffering not give us a legitimate reason for declaring war?

Your philosophy sounds like nationalism to the point of racism. But, then again, you also seem to think that parents who fall helpless in our homes don't deserve a call to 911, so I guess you are just taking your individual ethics and applying that same idea to nations.

[gprime]

Much as it pains me to say it, I wouldn't intervene for any humanitarian reason. But, even in the scenario you detailed, he invades the rest of Europe. Remember that he would be conquering our allies. And part of the way a nation remains secure is by having said allies available in times of need. Thus, we would be obliged to defend them, thus stopping Hitler anyway.

EDIT: You need to drop the "nationalism to the point of racism" crap. It gets really old really fast. And frankly, you know where I stand on issues like immigration, where I've called for fully open borders as long as certain simple conditions are met. So that is simply untrue. I just believe in limiting the use of war to that which is required.

[swivel]

EDIT: You need to drop the "nationalism to the point of racism" crap. It gets really old really fast. And frankly, you know where I stand on issues like immigration, where I've called for fully open borders as long as certain simple conditions are met. So that is simply untrue. I just believe in limiting the use of war to that which is required.

Are you saying you aren't racist? All I have to go on is what people post. I thought you were the guy who was promoting Jews only marrying other Jews. And that Jews have a higher average IQ.

If this was someone else, I apologize.

[Athena]

Ohhh...How cute. Look at how worked up and melodramatic I get when I post while intoxicated! Isn't that adorable... :p


The right thing to do? Absolutely not. We should never enter a war based on moral reasons, which is something I had assumed you'd agreed with, since there is no objective morality. Wars, in the post-colonial age at least, are supposed to be about security. If you want to have the CIA take down individual leaders, I'm fine with that. But that is far less involved than wasting weapons or soldiers.

To me, genocide is not simply a moral reason. Genocide is a threat to humanity in general. I, being a part of that humanity, support the termination of genocidal acts at just about any cost. It just happens to be the right thing to do as well. Even though I was drinking, I think I outlined my position pretty clearly.

No, there is no objective morality. But our interest in stopping genocide can be logically justified.

[gprime]

Are you saying you aren't racist? All I have to go on is what people post. I thought you were the guy who was promoting Jews only marrying other Jews. And that Jews have a higher average IQ.

If this was someone else, I apologize.

No, I'm not racist. I think Ward Connerly said it best when he said ""Supporting segregation need not be racist. One can believe in segregation and believe in equality of the races (CNN’s “Wolf Blitzer Reports” 12/13/2002)." And I happen to fully agree with him. But what I said was nowhere close to that extreme example anyway. I said that I was personally not partial to intermarriage between Jews and non-Jews because of the extinction consequences. However, I would never try and make that law, nor would I cease associating with one who has made that choice. I see it as a wrong one, and something I wish fewer people would do, but that is it. I do not presume to be entitled to anything more than that.

As for the IQ bit, I linked you to a valid, well-respected source. I think he made legitimate points, which you may have picked up on if you read the Murray piece. Saying that Jews, on average, have a higher IQ is no more racist than saying, on average, Blacks have darker skin than Hispanics.

[I am Legend]

i really dont have a problem with him saying jews are smarter. i believe it is true that a certain group of jews do have a higher average IQ. and there is pretty good evidence that the reason has a lot to do with the natural selection of partners. i do not think its racist to want to "stick with your own" when concerning things like marriage and children.

Swivel seems to have his hat on far too tight. i can be very proud of my irish/scottish descent, and yet not be a racist. being proud of what you are is not racist, its a form of self identity. it gives us a sense of where we came from, and what we are.

concerning jews, i would venture to say that for a male jew to marry outside of his ethnicity/religion (i use them interchangeably) would be asking for a long hard road, whereas if he married a jewish woman, things would be much easier. Judaism as a religion is HARD. its demanding and takes a lot of work and fortitude. most people are simply not cut out for that type of strict lifestyle (hence christianity and the gentiles).
from experience, it was rough on me being married to a latin woman simply because i didnt speak spanish, so family gatherings on her side sucked pretty bad for me. i could have learned to speak spanish, but marrying a white woman would have avoided the entire problem. does that mean i hate latinos? far from it............they are fucking hot! but if i was to ever entertain the idea of marrying another, i definitely would have to consider things i simply wouldnt if the girl was from my area (geographically, culturally, ethnically, etc).
a certain amount of racism is inside of every person on earth. its called cultural identity. its a good thing.

and back on topic:



















i got nothing.