The New Lost Generation

Suicide rates for troops returning from Afghanistan and Iraq are out of control, and post-traumatic stress disorder is reaching epidemic proportions. But is the Pentagon willing to tally the true cost of war?

BY RON CAPPS | AUGUST 10, 2010

When the war is over, when the troops are finally home and reunited with their families, when the dead have been buried and the wounded cared for -- then comes the reckoning. Sometimes it happens quickly, with the terrible cost of war weighed against the tyrants silenced, rebellions crushed, or populations rescued. Sometimes the reckoning takes longer, after the parades are over, flags furled and cased, subjects quietly changed. But no matter the form, the reckoning always comes. And after Washington's current military campaigns, it will be a heavy one indeed. Nine years, more than $1 trillion, at least 5,600 dead and 43,000 wounded. These are the costs of the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts -- the ones we can tally.

Less visible, but no less important, is that these wars are creating a new version of what writer Gertrude Stein called une génération perdue, a lost generation, analogous to the shellshocked men who returned home after the horrors of World War I. Many soldiers coming home today have struggled to reintegrate into civilian society, their mental wounds running deeper than any bone or flesh cuts ever could. And the country and the military will be changed by their return.

Rand Corp. now estimates that about 20 percent of returning veterans either have or will develop post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The suicide rate in the Army is out of control: During the first half of 2009, more American soldiers committed suicide than were killed in combat. In June, an average of one soldier a day committed suicide. A couple of years ago, just after I completed my second deployment, I came close to killing myself too.

The Army's field manual for "combat stress" -- the current term in vogue for mental-health problems in and after combat -- offers some context for what PTSD has done to our ranks in the past. In Europe and Africa during World War II, the proportion of mental traumas among all casualties was close to one in four -- one mental health case for every three blood wounds. On Okinawa island in the Pacific theater, the ratio for the 6th Marine Division (which suffered more than 2,600 wounded and added about 1,300 combat exhaustion casualties) was one in two, or half as many mental health evacuations as blood and bone wounds. This statistics varied wildly in Vietnam, but rose dramatically as the war went on. At first, proportions were roughly one mental trauma per 10 wounded. Later, neuropsychiatric cases constituted almost 60 percent of medical evacuations (though this number is skewed by the inclusion of drug and alcohol cases.) As many as one in five Vietnam veterans suffered PTSD, and even as late as 1990, one in 10 still did.

At present, it's not clear whether these wars have brought on more psychological trauma than earlier conflicts. We do know that more soldiers have been evacuated from Iraq and Afghanistan for mental-health issues than for combat wounds. It's possible that better body armor, mine-resistant vehicles, and a smaller number of force-on-force engagements have produced fewer blood-and-bone casualties, so we just see more of the mental-health trauma than we used to. 

We don't yet know where the current balance between blood and mental wounds lies. Between 2002 and 2009, there were about 33,000 wounded in action in Iraq and Afghanistan. During that same period, about 4,700 troops were evacuated for mental-health reasons -- just over 14 percent of all troops serving in theater.  But this figure only counts those cases so dramatic that the soldiers were sent home from the war. Doctors always prefer to get soldiers back to their units rather than out of theater, and not everyone who is treated appears on the record. My doctor kept my treatment quiet to keep from tarnishing my record and to protect my Top Secret security clearance. In short, that 14 percent is just a fraction of the actual number of soldiers suffering.

PAUL J. RICHARDS/AFP/Getty Images

 

Ron Capps is a veteran of the war in Afghanistan. He served 25 years in the Army and Army Reserve.

BOREDWELL

8:27 PM ET

August 10, 2010

lost

Gertrude Stein's "lost generation" is a reference to those who had survived WWI broken in spirit and permanently disillusioned by their experiences. The French called these men, The Generation in Fire. And the Brits used the term to describe the disproportionate loss of a generation of young men 18-28 yrs of age.in the prime of youth. All aptly describe the terribleness of war. All wars. Ernest Hemingway wrote an epitaph to The Sun Also Rises, his paean to WWI soldiers: he considered them "battered but not lost." We continue to wage war. Soldiers continue to suffer the consequences. Will we ever learn to recover the human cost?

 

JPABAIANO

8:26 AM ET

August 11, 2010

Congratulations

I'm not american (i was born in Brazil, a nation with a long record of peace) but as member of a family almost entirely formed by military (great grandfather, dad, and a lot of uncles are senior officials in brazilian army and navy), I can understand a bit what it means for those who embrace a hard and demanding tradition, often forgotten by the ones whom they swore to protect, to return to their homes in complete obliviousness and absolutely no recognition from the government or the society. Let us hope this can actually have some influence in the minds of policy makers.
Congratulations on your article.

 

NICHOLAS WIBBERLEY

3:42 AM ET

August 12, 2010

War is not for everyone

There is a distinction between taking up arms and risking life and limb to defend one’s home and country from attack and invasion on the one hand, and going forth into someone else’s country as an aggressor on the other. The former is a natural response our species shares with many others. The latter is not and has to be cultivated, starting young and continuing past adolescence until it is ingrained as an unquestioning response, as it is with many Israelis. The Greeks, who spent their lives warring with each other, developed this training to a fine art so that even Sophocles and Socrates would happily march to war. The US, on the other hand, goes out of its way to cultivate tolerance and discourage aggression in the young. It is hardly surprising that when youngsters indoctrinated to ‘care’ not only for fellow citizens but for humanity as a whole, to get worked up about women’s rights and the fate of homosexuals in alien cultures, are required to throw all that to the wind and travel thousands of miles to kill, maim and destroy strange peoples who respond with the all the recognisable determination of self-defence, there will be psychological fallout. If the US wishes to continue these military adventures, a different set of attitudes should be introduced into school and college curricula and some sort of mandatory military service undertaken from around age 18.

 

NICHOLAS WIBBERLEY

5:09 AM ET

August 12, 2010

Don’t be so touchy.

Of course not, Israel is simply a US ally and a good example of a nation that trains its young to accept the necessity for military attitudes. I could have mentioned Russia, China, Singapore or a dozen others but then someone might feel they were too remote from the US to be valid examples.

 

STANCOLE

5:05 AM ET

August 27, 2010

The latter is not

The latter is not and has to be cultivated, starting young and continuing past adolescence until it is ingrained as an unquestioning gift ideas, as it is with many Israelis. The Greeks, who spent their lives warring with each other, developed this training to a fine art so that even Sophocles and Socrates would happily march to war. interesting opinions and comments!

 

SILENTSHWAN

11:14 AM ET

August 13, 2010

Generation Care Bear.

Nicholas Wibberley has it's spot on.

This is a new type of conflict, and the two ways of really coping are:

A) Not Caring and there to make exuberant amounts of money for doing little more than riding around and maybe being killed (Hazard Pay + Hardship Pay + Plus Tax Free Zone + TDY Pay coming back = Even a Frugal Private is coming out of a deployment with $20,000 cash money). There's a very small fraction of the US Army that is actually conducting Low Intensity Conflict Operations, most are just on Combat Logistics Patrols and on Bases. So your there just to do a job, which is very detrimental to discipline and moral really.

B) You dabble in Realist IR philosophies. You never bought the WMD argument but you understood the reasoning for a foothold in the middle east. You understand that if you give your life, you are very much so giving it to your country so the US can continue dominance in a Zero-Sum Game. If you can make peace with it, then you understand that your job in Iraq or Afghanistan is more than just a job and alot is riding on this.

So project this on to a generation of 18 to 24 year olds where they join a Army that's quick to promote people to NCO positions without truly evaluating personalities and competencies due to a distinct lack of bodies in the force. Just 5 years ago these kids were playing Xbox games that romanticized the 101st Airborne and the flag being raised at Iwo Jima (and now take notice that games such as Modern Warfare and the New Medal of Honor are trying to romanticize the current conflicts). They could of cared less about geo-political trends, yet here they are driving down MSR-Tampa with a very good chance of being blown up, just the question of which Vehicle in the Convoy.

It's not hard to figure out their brains just can't process the fact they're getting blown up for no reason. I'm no professional, but in my personal experiences and conversations It's rarely the House Raid or other offensive operation that triggers PTSD in infantrymen that were living on crappy FOBs in the middle of nowhere, it's the getting ambushed on the Convoy with IEDs and RPGs going off everywhere and not having a real chance to fight back, usually by Support Soldiers. ROE being tampered with, drowning in cultural awareness classes, and having super PXs being established to blend the line between war and garrison (people buying plasma TVs for their CHUs, POV vehicle parking only by order of the Garrison Sergeant Major, it was pretty rediculous in some places) are all contributing factors. Perhaps this is the first war where communication back home was so wide spread that many family EXPECTED calls/facebook updates/instant messages from their soldiers in Iraq.

McCrystal tried to do the right thing by taking away soldier's Burger King and Dairy Queen in Afghanistan, and there's rumors of it being overturned. The Army is going in a distinct "new" direction and it leaves a little bit of fear in some of us if we actually have to fight a war, one that's not going to involve living in FOBs and eating overpriced contracted food in a DFAC. I'm talking the kind that the 2nd infantry division in Korea train for, where you jump TOC 5 times a day to avoid artillery and your patrolling areas where it's shoot on sight.

Sure the Brass will tell you that the Army is training for that kind of war still, but that's not the question, the question is if this new, kindler gentler army can psychologically handle a war like that.