MOTHER JONES BY E-MAIL

The Pentagon's PTSD Denial

News: How killing scars soldiers—and their loved ones.

September/October 2008 Issue


TOOLS

EmailE-mail article
PrintPrint article




BACKTALK

E-mail the editor





Google


In the spring of 2002, an Army major named Peter Kilner submitted an unusual essay to Military Review, a journal published by the Combined Arms Center in Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. Kilner argued that combat leaders have an obligation to justify the killing their soldiers do. "Soldiers who kill reflexively in combat will likely one day reconsider their actions reflectively," he wrote. "If they are unable to justify to themselves that they killed another human being, they will likely, and understandably, suffer enormous guilt" that could balloon into post-traumatic stress disorder (ptsd). Top brass who ignored the issue, he concluded, were "treating their soldiers as commodities, not as persons."

As an active-duty infantryman suggesting that a soldier's most basic task could be emotionally self-destructive, Kilner had broken a giant taboo. Not surprisingly, his article didn't go over well. Former drug czar General Barry McCaffrey, a colleague of Kilner's at West Point, dismissed his argument out of hand. "He and some of the older generation really felt like, 'Soldiers kill; they have no problem killing the enemy,' " Kilner recalls. "The question seemed to him just not a question." (McCaffrey did not respond to requests for comment.) At one point, a few of Kilner's superiors tried to discourage him from presenting his ideas publicly. "They told me it's bad PR," he says. "I literally had a colonel pull me in the closet and threaten to break me if I spoke to the press."

But Kilner may have been on to something. Military doctors estimate that 20 percent of soldiers and 42 percent of reservists have returned from Iraq with some kind of psychological problem. Army suicides have more than doubled since 2001, hitting a 27-year high in 2007. The military has failed to address these problems in a systematic way. An investigation by National Public Radio found that the Army had punished and kicked out soldiers with ptsd; two veterans groups are currently suing the Department of Veterans Affairs for its "shameful failures" in providing mental health treatment.

In 2006, a Pentagon team concluded that the biggest predictors of mental illness were the length of a soldier's deployment and how often he experienced combat. Yet Kilner says the real issue is not the time you do, but how you deal with that time. "People don't have nightmares about, 'It's another Groundhog Day.' They have nightmares about the killing they've done and seen."

Now a lieutenant colonel, Kilner helps run the Center for Company Level Leaders at the US Military Academy at West Point. He's been interested in the ethics and impact of killing since 1994, when he was a young Airborne captain preparing to deploy to Haiti. A devout Catholic, he asked an Army chaplain what justified the killing he might do. "The president says it's right, so it's right," the chaplain replied. Kilner didn't end up killing anyone, but he wondered if the Army had mentally prepared him to do so.

"When the military lists wartime causes of mental illness," he told me in his office overlooking the Hudson River, "they talk about, 'Oh, it's hot; oh, it's scary,' looking at what happens to soldiers without any mention of the violent things soldiers actually do." By interviewing combat veterans, Kilner hopes to spur an internal debate between traditionalists who say any discussion of killing undermines morale, and those who say the military is ignoring a major cause—perhaps the major cause—of ptsd.

One of the soldiers Kilner has talked with is Major Rob Hefner, a 42-year-old Texan who ditched a stateside post for a combat tour in Iraq. One day in June 2005, Hefner came under fire at an Iraqi army checkpoint. He spotted a figure with a rifle approximately 300 feet away. "He was gonna shoot at my soldiers," Hefner recalls. "That is not a permissible action." He raised his M-4, zeroed in on the man's chest, and fired once. "At the time I fired the shot, all I felt was the satisfaction of seeing a round hit its intended target, like being out on the range," he says.

After the firefight, Hefner went to look for the body. "I really can't answer why," he says. "Probably a part of me wanted to humanize the guy." Hefner asked the Iraqis what they intended to do with the corpse. "We don't bury dogs," one replied. "They left him there to rot, and for weeks, if the wind was right, you could smell him," Hefner says.

"I didn't regret in any way, shape, or form what I did. But neither did I delude myself by saying it was the right thing to do." He stops to think about his next words. "I'm okay with having done a wrong thing for the right reasons."

Getting soldiers like Hefner to talk is not easy, partly due to etiquette. "As crazy as it is, it's a question that's just impolite to ask," Kilner explains. When he first approached soldiers online, he recalls, "My question—'How do you justify killing to yourself?'—rubbed some people really wrong. I remember one letter started, 'Who the hell are you to question whether what I did was right or wrong?'" One soldier told Kilner that he should be spending his time "worrying about how to kill people."

In his research, which has included two monthlong trips to Iraq, Kilner has noted a pattern. Soldiers whose commanders openly discuss the dilemmas of killing before and after combat appear to cope well with their experiences. Soldiers who lack that support fall into isolation or depression. He paraphrases psychologist and retired Lt. Colonel David Grossman, the author of On Killing: "If you go into it cracked, you come out of it shattered. If you go into it strong, you come out stronger." Hefner agrees with that assessment. "Let's be honest. Most of our trigger pullers are kids, 18, 19 years old. How many of our 18- and 19-year-olds are anything but cracked?"

Clinicians have paid little attention to Kilner's research, in part because it's entirely anecdotal. It is difficult to estimate how many veterans might be adversely affected by the stress of killing because the military doesn't collect statistics on how many have killed in the line of duty, not even among those who are treated for depression or ptsd. The lasting psychological consequences of killing are "strikingly under-researched," according to Dr. Brett T. Litz, associate director of the National Center for ptsd. "Unfortunately," he says, "we are just now getting serious about scientifically evaluating the unique psychological and social scars of killing and other potentially morally injurious experiences in Iraq."

Many of the soldiers I've spoken with say that the military's response to combat stress is ineffective. The Army provides soldiers with pocket guides on combat stress that feature kernels of wisdom such as "Try to look calm and in control" and "Drink plenty of fluids." When they return from overseas, servicemen and -women are offered a questionnaire that is supposed to screen for ptsd. However, it does not ask directly if a soldier has killed anyone.

Soldiers who advocate a more honest discussion believe it can only come from their combat-tested officers and colleagues. "The answer is not more ptsd awareness and shrinks," Hefner says. "Soldiers don't need to lay on someone's couch and talk about their childhood. They need the company of other soldiers...After all, why does the vfw exist?"

Kilner agrees, but he doesn't expect the conversation to start soon. With 195,000 soldiers currently on combat tours in Iraq and Afghanistan, he explains, "Everyone's really busy."

Adam Weinstein attended the US Naval Academy.



 

Post a Comment

Your Name: 

Your Comment: 
 
Please press "Submit" only once to avoid double-posting.
All HTML formatting is removed from comments.
Read the Mother Jones community rules here.

Comments:

The fact that the military (Pentagon in particular) refuses to acknowledge PTSD is incredibly stupid and dangerous to civilians when the soldiers return from active duty. How many times have we heard stories of soldiers suffering from PTSD kill their families, coworkers, and even strangers? And, the fact that the government wants soldiers to make the choice to kill people without considering the consequences is so near-sighted that it is frightening. Perhaps some antiquated mentality of “you’re a man, suck it up” comes into play when these decisions are made. That sort of backwards thinking doesn’t make allowances for the complexity of the human psyche.
Posted by:AzhuraSeptember 10, 2008 10:29:00 AMRespond ^
There are a few general movements I've witnessed in recent times including concerns over sustainability, executive accountability, and more perennial - humane treatment. This article brings up an important issue that affects each of those movements as they relate to the US military. I can only hope this article contributes to greater attention to the issue.
Posted by:FarisSeptember 12, 2008 1:29:52 PMRespond ^
This definitely a touchy subject. On the one hand, of course we need to diagnose and treat soldiers with PTSD to the best of our ability, but I am curious of the effectiveness of available treatment options. Not diminish the importance of trying to treat these soldiers, but what does the research look like in term of rehabilitating soldiers suffering from PTSD. My guess is that the success of "curing" these soldiers is quite low. It seems logical that soldiers would want to talk fellow combat soldiers about their experiences, but does this even help. I think preparing soldiers for what they may experience and how to cope beforehand may be more beneficial than dealing with the problem after the fact.
Posted by:HectorSeptember 13, 2008 4:04:52 PMRespond ^
I am a retired School Psychologist. I am worried about the children of soldiers with PTSD and TBI. Their mom or dad comes back from war and look the same but act differently. I would like to make a documentary where these children can tell their stories. If soldiers would watch the 30 minute documentary they may be pushed to get the help they need. School Professionals need to become aware of the difficulties these children face and provide help for them. To produce a good quality documentary I need 60,000 dollars. I have sent a proposal to military mental health centers to possibly get grant money. If anyone who reads this has knowledge of where I could get funding please contact me at brenda.garnett@gmail.com Thank you
Posted by:Brenda GarnettNovember 10, 2008 1:59:17 PMRespond ^
Oh why the hell do we ever go to war? Of course I understand defending your country, but Iraq, Panama, Haiti, Vietnam?? Korea and WWII OK, but the others -- did we lose even those wars we say we won? War strikes me as a remnant of our barbaric and animal past and makes me question whether we are as 'civilized' as we think we are.
Posted by:cjger31November 10, 2008 3:32:41 PMRespond ^
I don't know, but I would guess it makes a huge difference whether the killing was of an enemy combatant or a non-combatant. I would think that many servicemen would have a lot more trouble rationalizing killing non-combatants inadvertently, which happens a lot in war. It's much easier to rationalize killing someone if you knew that if you didn't, he'd likely kill you.
Posted by:LawrenceNovember 10, 2008 3:43:55 PMRespond ^
There are a lot of ways to end up with PTSD besides killing someone in combat. There are a lot of Vets, including myself, who have it. I didn't kill anyone that I know of. I fired at them but whether they were killed or not I don't know. When I left Vietnam in 1970 people were just beginning to realize what PTSD was. The Vets of WWI suffered from "shell shock", the Vets of WWII suffered from "combat fatigue". Every one back then thought it went away with a little rest. No one screened me for PTSD when I left the Army in 1971. After years of nightmares, sleeplessness, 29 jobs, 3 failed marriages an inability to have lasting relationships with my children, no friends and an alcohol independence I finally sought help 38 yeas after leaving Vietnam. The VA is treating me and their doctor's (3 of them) agree that I have PTSD due to my Vietnam experiences but the VA disability raters only statement is "You have to prove to us that you were where you say you were, you have to prove that the incidents ocurred and you have to produce witnesses".

War is chaotic and s**t happens - don't they get it?
Posted by:John StolteNovember 10, 2008 4:27:17 PMRespond ^
Wow, this is great stuff. Although it is truly amazing that the services don't keep track of those who have reported kills. They definitely have the info to make a start, but they obviously want to avoid keeping track - for whatever stupid political reason. PTSD is very real, and very dangerous, and none of it is new at all. What is new is that it is much more treatable now, which means people can get better. Vets don't want to come home and freak out on their families and friends. But they need to know that if it does happen, it doesn't have to stay that way. They/we can get better. I know from experience. No one seems to want to acknowledge that one of the biggest taboos in the world is killing. We reserve the death penalty for murderers. When we send our sons out to become uniformed killers, they still have the social training that killing is not only wrong, it's the worst wrong you can commit. To refuse to deal with this fact is just blind stupidity. The services are great when it comes to recognizing and treating alchohol problems. Let's see them get with the program on PTSD too, since this is a huge pragmatic problem affecting performance, retention, and public relations.
Posted by:Navy TomNovember 10, 2008 6:36:34 PMRespond ^
This is an article about the Pentagon's (and the government's)failure to properly treat PTSD. I find it interesting that, at least one commenter, has found a way to turn this into a forum from which to attack individual Veterans. To me, it is a good example of how polarized this nation is and how far some will go to espouse a certain point of view. In reality both the ones who went to Canada and the soldiers who went and who go to war are the heros. Both sets of people elected to follow their conscience. Both groups had an impact on the future of this country. People with radical viewpoints are able to express them because brave men and women have come forward to defend that right and the government saw the need to move away from universal conscription. There have been 6 administrations since the Vietnam war ended, 2 Democrat (3 if you want to count Obama who hasn't taken office yet), and 4 Republican. None of them has properly addressed the issue of what to do with soldiers who have PTSD due to their combat experiences. As for me the "little piece of hell" in my head is preferable to this nation succumbing to domination by a foreign idiology.
Posted by:John StolteNovember 11, 2008 4:33:41 AMRespond ^
Oh, come on, let's stop lying to each other. Soldiers kill other soldiers, but the US Army at this time mostly kills lightly armed civilians and civilians the "collateral damage". It's one thing to face an equally armed and led opponent, quite another to go in and sack and occupy a country which after the initial fighting has no armed forces, in the traditional sense, at all.
No wonder our soldiers are going nuts, they are employed as armed thugs against lightly armed men and un-armed women and children. They either go nuts because they see what they are doing and hate themselves, or even worse, they like it.
They US Army is expert at finding the right man for the job. And now that the job is the most corrupt and corrupting thing there is, conquering of the un-armed by the heavily armed and well-led, they find the right men for that.
No one says they will be fit for any civilised manner of living, afterwards.
You can judge for yourself whether the loss of their minds was worth it.
Posted by:MooserNovember 11, 2008 10:39:28 AMRespond ^
Mooser is living in lala land! Join the Army or Marine Corps yourself and find out for yourself just how "lightly armed" these terrorists are.

The fighters who flocked to Iraq after we deposed Saddam are not the same people we went to war against. These fighters came to Iraq after the fact to perpetuate the misery at any cost. If we were not staying there to continue the confrontation you would be fighting them on your front lawn. We won the war we started out to fight in Iraq in just a few short days. After that the terrorists decided to show up. I have a lot of respect for those who learn from experience and none for those who think that they know sonething by looking down their noses at those who have "been there & done that".
Posted by:John StolteNovember 11, 2008 5:44:38 PMRespond ^
Mooser I suggest you get off your fat ass and go to Iraq or Afghanistan and see for yourself how lightly armed the terrorists are, I bet you would change your mind, and on this point, and to see who we are actually fighting....but dont worry, YOU WILL NEVER have to do any fighting for your freedom....YOU have others to do that for you.
Posted by:David WolfeNovember 22, 2008 5:08:44 AMRespond ^
Yeah, I remember my time in Iraq constantly on watch for insurgent attack helicopters and terrorist tanks. Oh wait, I had that turned around. I wore a 90 pound flack, rode in an 18 ton armored vehicle with a 25 mm cannon, and had air and ground fire support capable of destroying an area the size of square kilometer just a radio call away. You would have to have a learning disability to say that an insurgent fighter is as heavily armed and equipped as I was. I saw none of the people I fought ever possessing more then light arms, and the heaviest weapon they ever employed against me were rocket and mortar systems, other then IEDs. The problem is you can't win against an insurgency. We should know it's how we won our independence from England. I'm not exactly sure how I would have been fighting terrorists in my front yard if we had not invaded Iraq, but your as justified to have your opinion as I am to mine, though I guess the war there hasn't done much to deter terrorism judging by what's been happening in the world. Also, just because a person chooses to join the military does not ensure anyones freedom. You ensure your freedoms by practicing them daily, knowing what officials are doing in your name, and holding them accountable for it. A member of the military is committed to defend the Constitution not just go kill people. I suggest you see what two time MOH recipient Gen. Smedley Butler USMC, had to say about national defense in "War is a Racket".
Posted by:Mike NordstromDecember 3, 2008 3:43:41 PMRespond ^

Jail.org - Inmate Search
Criminal records, instant public records & people search & current court records. www.jail.org

U.S. Public Records Search
Search County & State Court Records, Criminal records, Vital and Adoption Records www.PublicRecordsInfo.com

Records.com - People Search
Public Records and Background Checks. Instantly Search Criminal Records, Addresses and Court Records www.Records.com

Court Records & County Records
Find Instant Public Records, Criminal Records as Well as County Property Records Search. www.PublicRecordsIndex.com

Real Viagra, Cialis Levitra Deal
Dare to compare our competitive prices. Free overnight delivery to new patients in the US. No catch 22!

Subscribe Now!
Don't lose sight of the facts. Every issue of Mother Jones is loaded with hard-hitting reporting you can't afford to miss.

Big Bang, Little Bucks
Mother Jones Text Links is a great way to get on the site for an affordable price. For more information please click this the headline

End the genocide in Darfur
Every day, Darfuris face rape, murder, and starvation. Be a Voice for Darfur: tell Obama to end the suffering.
















And Then What?

Media Destruction Watch

Public Service Announcement

Money For Main Street


More MoJo voices...



bookIN PRINT

CLICK HERE
for more great reading

headphones IN TUNE
New music every issue

CLICK TO LISTEN

Advertise Liberally

This article has been made possible by the Foundation for National Progress, the Investigative Fund of Mother Jones, and gifts from generous readers like you.

© 2008 The Foundation for National Progress

About Us   Support Us   Advertise   Ad Policy   Privacy Policy   Contact Us   Subscribe   RSS