The results of a study released last Friday by a US army mental health advisory team discovered that one in ten US combat soldiers have abused an Iraqi civilian at some point during their deployment. The report also claimed that of those surveyed, less than half would report their fellow soldiers for murdering or injuring an innocent civilian.

Further, the report revealed that some 55% of those surveyed, which included 1,320 soldiers and 447 Marines, believe that torture should be permitted if it can result in the saving of the life of a fellow soldier. 38% of those surveyed believed that torture should be excusable for purposes of gathering intelligence.

The purpose of the survey was to discover the extent of mental stress on those serving in Iraq and concluded that there is an undeniable increase in mental health problems amongst those who have had extended or multiple tours. The results include an increased suicide rate, signs of acute stress, anxiety, and depression. In all, 27% of those who have had performed multiple tours of duty in Iraq have tested positive for mental health problems.

This is, of course, a very delicate subject because it makes us look at the truly human side of this conflict from both perspectives. On the one hand, the abuse of innocent people cannot be viewed as acceptable because of the stress that American personnel endure. At the same time, when you place people in a highly complicated and stressful situation then they are bound to exhibit behaviour that is both out of character (for the most part), a reflection of frustration, and a mechanism with which to deflect those feelings within them that, given the circumstances, they feel cannot be immediately address.

There was a time, not too long ago in fact, when Post Traumatic Stress Disorder was considered a myth to many, that those returning from duties in Iraq and Afghanistan that were suffering from problems were in the minority and that the condition itself was not really a serious issue. Having had first hand experience with US soldiers suffering from PTSD that have contemplated suicide, had spouses leave them because of their depression, and suffered the humiliation of being disregarded by the very same military in which they served – I can honestly say that PTSD is anything but a myth.

I, myself, suffer from mental illness, and I can’t even fathom what it must be like to be haunted by the experiences of those that have served in Iraq and Afghanistan given the massive complexities and highly ambiguous natures of those conflicts. At some point, no matter the individual, a self protective mental state must be embraced that attempts to disengage the individual from the reality of their situation. In the case of Iraq, there exists no overwhelming context to the mission to which to cling. Unlike the Second World War, in which soldiers understood, for the most part, their role in the struggle and what the war itself meant, those serving in Iraq and Afghanistan have not been afforded that luxury. Instead they have been given a handful of confused and, in some cases, contradictory, motives for their presence there, which further compounds the mental problems that they ultimately find themselves facing.

Storming Utah Beach on D-Day, the average soldier knew why the invasion of Europe was necessary. The reasons for stepping out of those troop transports and onto that beach were defined by the actions of an enemy that were easily understood and that were not alterable. The invasion of Europe took place because it had been occupied by the Germans – a fact. The invasion of Iraq, on the other hand, was not only based on falsehoods, but then spun with numerous other justifications when the initial reason for military action, Saddam Hussein’s supposed possession of Weapons Of Mass Destruction, was proved to be erroneous. That initial purpose proved baseless, it was soon replaced by secondary justifications, such as the now debunked link between Hussein’s regime and al-Qaeda, something that many Americans actually still believe to be true. So, in the end, antiquated justifications became the predominant reason for being there – the emancipation of the Iraqi people, the overthrow of Hussein’s regime, bringing peace and stability to the country. And yet, within weeks of the invasion, a grassroots insurgency sprung up and US troops found themselves not greeted as liberators, but as foreign invaders. Subsequently, in the years since the initial invasion and the ridiculous proclamation that the war had been won before it really even began in earnest, US troops have found themselves left with only one really relatable purpose for their mission – the removal of Saddam Hussein. Yet, and this is a crucial point, his removal did not bring hostilities to an end, not did it suddenly result in a change in attitude amongst the majority of the Iraqi population. What it did do, despite the hurried formation of a democratic ‘show government’, was create a power vacuum in a country that is, in truth, three countries.

So, from there, where does the average US soldier turn for the reason they are in Iraq? Is it now to combat al-Qaeda, which, according to the Bush Administration, constitutes a significant percentage of the insurgency, a fallacy that is rarely challenged? According to Juan Cole, al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia, as they’re known, actually constitutes a very small percentage of the insurgency. The Sunni led insurgency which, according to Cole, is comprised of numerous different factions itself, is another matter altogether, but one that the Bush administration cannot link to al-Qaeda. It should also not be overlooked that, over the last few years, back channeling between the likes of the CIA and various insurgent groups has taken place in an attempt to grant them amnesty in exchange for their participation in the political process.

But your average US combat soldier probably doesn’t have the time, nor the energy, to ruminate on such things. They remain in a one dimensional reality, one in which they are forced to wonder if a child running away from an oncoming convoy of Humvee’s has just planted an IED or is simply terrified and doing what kids do when they’re scared – run away. They have to man checkpoints and wonder if any of the cars coming towards them might explode. That, in the end, is simply survivalist thinking, not one focused on aspects of policy or anything else. And then we wonder why things like the massacre in Haditha happen and why they’re covered up.

The suicide rate amongst those serving in Iraq and those discharged is 17.3% per 100,000 soldiers, which is higher than the rate of all the branches of service during the Vietnam War. (“Iraq: Low Army Morale, High Suicide Rate,” Reuters, March 25, 2004.).

The Flipside

If Post Traumatic Stress Disorder is a problem for US personnel in Iraq, imagine what effects it’s having on the Iraqi population, especially Iraqi youth. Parents in Iraq that still attempt to take their kids to school do so after arming themselves with handguns. They alter their routes daily, often listening to news broadcasts in an attempt to learn what areas of, for example, Baghdad, to avoid. Meanwhile, the kids sit in the backseat of the car terrified, running through a plethora of possibilities of what might happen during the drive.

Millions of Iraqis have fled the country, those that remain endure daily hardships that, to us, seem unbelievable. Never mind being exposed to bloodshed on the streets of Baghdad and other cities throughout the country on a daily basis, never mind the fact that their’s is a nation not only occupied by foreign militaries who, in no small way, helped ignite the civil war that has since engulfed the nation, but one in which the simplest of amenities are still intermittent years after the invasion itself. Lines for fuel stretch for miles, and it’s not uncommon for people to have to sleep in their cars overnight so that they don’t lose their place and can, eventually, get gas the next day if they’re lucky. It should also be mentioned that the price of it is astronomical, making our complaints over high fuel prices seem like the lame ranting of a child denied a new toy.

And then there is the death toll. What can be said about it? That the loss of hundreds of thousands of innocents was worth the removal of Saddam Hussein, the advent of a guerrilla war, open civil war, the decimation of the nation’s infrastructure, and the daily degradation of a society that has existed for millennia?

Foreign policy has always had more to do with domestic politics than anything else. Daniel Ellsberg said that. He was right. Iraq is a deepening hole, a hole in which American men and women serve attempting to glean some realistic purpose for their being there, not unlike US troops in Vietnam did decades earlier. It is a hole governed by an ineffectual and largely powerless federal government that would collapse were those who helped usher it into existence to prove a domestic political point to abandoned it. It is a hole in which sleeping sectarian tensions have been awakened that have produced devastating results.

Government for and by the people? The people of Iraq have no such luxury because theirs are days filled with thoughts of simple survival and extreme anxiety. While the aggression of US troops towards the populace can be documented in a report and justified by their levels of anxiety, the people of Iraq have no such luxury once the hole in which they now live becomes the grave of their future. They are, even now, despite the presence of foreign militaries, despite the President’s pledge to see the thing through, the ones that will be have to live in that grave when all of this is said and done. Like many others in foreign lands, their pride and sense of self worth has been violently stripped them, and that is not something that can ever be corrected by staying a course or pretending that this war, this occupation, and the actions of this administration, were conceived in the best interests of the Iraqi people, but for reasons altogether oblivious to their fate, no matter the propaganda fed us here in the land of milk and honey.