This month, Fort Carson released a 126-page report by a task force of behavioral-health and Army professionals who looked for common threads in the soldiers' crimes. They concluded that the intensity of battle, the long-standing stigma against seeking help, and shortcomings in substance-abuse and mental-health treatment may have converged with "negative outcomes," but more study was needed.
The killings are only the headline-grabbing tip of a much broader pyramid of crime. Since 2005, the brigade's returning soldiers have been involved in brawls, beatings, rapes, DUIs, drug deals, domestic violence, shootings, stabbings, kidnapping and suicides [mere "negative outcomes"].
Did the infantry turn some men into killers, or did killers seek out the infantry? Did the Army let in criminals, or did combat-tattered soldiers fall into criminal habits? Did Fort Carson fail to take care of soldiers, or did soldiers fail to take advantage of care they were offered?
And, most importantly, since the brigade is now in Afghanistan, is there a way to keep the violence from happening again?
Eric Dean, an author in Connecticut who specializes in war's psychological toll, reviewed records from the Civil War for his 1997 book, "Shook Over Hell," and found the same surge of crime and suicide that Fort Carson has seen.
"They have been in every war," he said. "They never readjusted. They ended up living alone, drinking too much."
They were "the lost generation" of World War I. They are the veterans of Vietnam who disproportionately populate homeless shelters and prisons today.
The psychological casualties may be particularly heavy in Iraq, he said.
"In the Civil War, if you experienced really traumatic fighting, chances are you didn't make it," he said. "Today, you can be blown up multiple times and go right back into the fight."
In Vietnam, most draftees did one yearlong tour. Since the start of the Iraq war, some soldiers have been deployed three times for 12 to 15 months each.
The investigation, conducted by a team of 27 behavioral health and Army professionals, concluded with a report released July 15. The findings echo what guys in the ranks said: Their tour was bloodier than most; violence in Iraq messed them up; they started abusing drugs and alcohol; treatment for substance abuse and mental health at Fort Carson was inadequate; stigma kept soldiers from getting help; and when those so-called "risk factors" came together, guys got in serious trouble.
The report did not address other issues, such as soldiers carrying guns once they return from deployments, alleged war crimes by the unit, or the Army's deployment of soldiers with pending civilian felonies.
The study recommended better mental health care and training, programs to "ensure there is no humiliation or belittling" of soldiers seeking mental health care, and more studies to "assess a possible link between deployment, combat intensity, and aggressive behavior."
But Graham said the report does not offer a simple cure.
"We didn't see any one thing that we could identify and say, yes, this is the reason these soldiers do this," he said.
"I think I was given a God-given talent to suck it up. Horrible things happen, I suck it up. I don't let it bother me."
The whole article is in two parts. It's very long but should be read. "Casualties of War, Part I: The hell of war comes home," Dave Philipps. The Gazette. July 24, 2009. Part II.
They need more studies. That's what they say. Do you see the disconnect? Do you see the mental manipulation that is going on there? War is insane. It makes people insane. If you turn off their emotions about it, you have not helped them at all. You have succeeded in killing their souls.
"...a God-given talent to suck it up"? That's not a God-given talent. That's Satan. That's falling to being a demon, monstrously wicked. It's having no working conscience.
Why is America full of that? Why are Americans supporting that?
The Pentagon is evil. It creates monsters. It wants cold-blooded, remorseless, mass killers. The only way to fix it is to do away with the Pentagon.
This is a major problem for everyone concerned and not just because these soldiers come back completely messed up and do a great deal of damage up to and including murder and not just because while they are doing what they call their jobs, killing everything that moves as ruthlessly and brutally as imaginable, but also because the Pentagon has no intention of ending the cause of it all but only in creating exactly what they want: cold-blooded, remorseless, mass killers.
They will do this by drugs, by invasive technology, by mind control, and by replacing humans with hunter-killer robots controlled first by complete sociopaths who won't care at all that they control the robots while those robots slaughter and slaughter. Then the robots will become autonomous. This will only get further and further out of control.
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)