US Army Suicides Up In 2007
US Army active duty suicides were up in 2007, according to Pentagon officials, surpassing the number of suicides in 2006, reaching 108. And to think that not too long ago there were actual discussions taking place at to the merits of post-traumatic stress disorder. One truly unfortunate aspect of this news is that a quarter of those that took their own lives did so while in Iraq.
While on the subject of Iraq, many of you are probably aware that former Press Secretary Scott McClellan’s new book makes some interesting assertions about the Bush Administration’s reasons for going to war in Iraq and the way in which the war was promoted and planned. Not surprisingly, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is defending the administration claiming that the fundamental reason for invading Iraq in 2003 was the threat of weapons of mass destruction. Her logic? That you can’t look at it from a current point of view, but rather one prior to the invasion given the intelligence available.
Ya, Curveball was an amazingly reliable source, Condi.
Rice also employed the term ‘liberated’ with regards to the invasion and occupation. Five years, and countless lives after the ‘liberation’ of Iraq, it remains the most dangerous place in the world. So much so that millions of Iraqis have fled ‘liberated’ Iraq.
Of course, this is where those with no leg to stand on will point to the tyrannical realities of the Hussein regime and claim that his removal from power was paramount, that he was responsible for mass murder and a laundry list of other crimes.
And that’s true. I’m not going to argue that at all. But having said that, let’s have a little fun with a timeline regarding a horrible event that many pro-war pundits like to use as an example of why the Hussein regime needed to be overthrown.
1) In 1988 the Kurdish village of Halabja was gassed. Thousands were killed and injured in the attack, which was condemned throughout the world.
2) After the attack, Congress voted to stop all military and financial assistance to the Hussein regime.
3) President Ronald Reagan vetoed it.
4) The United States continued to aid the regime of Saddam Hussein.
This is fact, not fiction, and it would be well of those that believe that the removal of Saddam Hussein was of paramount importance to remember that the United States had dealings with Mr. Hussein as far back as the mid 1960’s.
You do not get to help create and feed monsters only to claim that history is inconsequential when it doesn’t suit your hegemonic objectives. Unless, of course, you’re the most powerful country in the world. Then you can get away with just about anything – including rewriting history, or simply making it disappear.
9/11 did more than just blind a nation, allowing one of the most dangerous foreign policy doctrines in US history to be instituted. It also largely rendered history moot. And that, no matter what the occurrence, is a very dangerous thing indeed.
Want to bookmark or share this entry?
This entry was posted on Thursday, May 29th, 2008 at 10:16 am. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
May 29th, 2008 at 10:38 am
The United States is beginning to remind me of Orwell’s “1984.” Wilson’s job was to re-write history as a member of the Outer Party. Strange and frightening.
May 29th, 2008 at 10:41 am
Patrick wrote last month about Canadian Forces suicides doubling from 2006 to 2007. What a horrible trend.
I’m not sure what to think about Scott McClellan. Guess sitting in rocking chairs in Texas with Bush reminiscing about the good ol’ days wasn’t so appealing after all. Seems opportunistic and more than a bit of a reversal, sure, but… I don’t really doubt what he’s saying either.
I hate it when people use the “But Hussein had to go!” excuse. Yeah, he had to go… when it was convenient for the U.S.
May 29th, 2008 at 10:45 am
Policy for redeployment (i think this is from 2006):
“It specifically states that troops with psychotic or bipolar disorders, and those taking anti-psychotic or anti-convulsant drugs, should not be deployed. Troops who suffer from any mental disorder for more than a year should also be considered “unsuitable” for military duty.
But servicemembers with “a psychiatric disorder in remission, or whose residual symptoms do not impair duty performance” may be considered for duty downrange. It lists post-traumatic stress disorder as a “treatable” problem”
They are treating PTSD in Iraq provided you agree to another term. If you go home - there is not much available, plus they might not let you leave if you are diagnosed. If that is not Catch 22, I don’t know what is.
Plus, they have been telling psychiatrists to downgrade PTSD to milder disorders so that they would not have to pay as much support.
As far as rendering history moot, “they” do not teach history in North America Matt, they teach social studies. Thus you learn that history is an elective and is, therefore, inconsequential.
May 29th, 2008 at 11:24 am
Canadian Forces’ suicide rate is up to, it’s in the archives from about a month or so ago.
May 29th, 2008 at 11:32 am
This entry got me philosophizing again about what it must be like when someone finds life somewhat unbearable that they’re ready to throw it all away.
I mean, what is it that lets you finally DO it resp. deters most people from de facto doing it?
May 29th, 2008 at 11:51 am
[quote comment="53832"]Canadian Forces’ suicide rate is up to, it’s in the archives from about a month or so ago.[/quote]
Dude! As I said! I even credited you.
May 29th, 2008 at 12:22 pm
[quote comment="53831"]Policy for redeployment (i think this is from 2006):
“It specifically states that troops with psychotic or bipolar disorders, and those taking anti-psychotic or anti-convulsant drugs, should not be deployed. Troops who suffer from any mental disorder for more than a year should also be considered “unsuitable” for military duty.
But servicemembers with “a psychiatric disorder in remission, or whose residual symptoms do not impair duty performance” may be considered for duty downrange. It lists post-traumatic stress disorder as a “treatable” problem”
They are treating PTSD in Iraq provided you agree to another term. If you go home - there is not much available, plus they might not let you leave if you are diagnosed. If that is not Catch 22, I don’t know what is.
Plus, they have been telling psychiatrists to downgrade PTSD to milder disorders so that they would not have to pay as much support.
As far as rendering history moot, “they” do not teach history in North America Matt, they teach social studies. Thus you learn that history is an elective and is, therefore, inconsequential.[/quote]
Why do they even bother downgrading PTSD? They’re redeploying the “unfit” anyway.
May 29th, 2008 at 12:51 pm
Sorry revisited, I worded it a bit poorly, the downgrading is reserved for the vets. I know very well about the “unfit”.
Ill and Hurt Soldiers deployed to Iraq, why?
http://vets4politics.blogspot.com/2008/01/ill-and-hurt-soldiers-deployed-to-iraq.html
May 29th, 2008 at 2:18 pm
that damn ‘project for the new american century’ circa at least 2.5 years prior to 9/11, is always a good refresher for what the hegemon intends to do…fuck, they even had two ‘twin towers’ on one of the covers (I think the one article called ‘protecting America’s Defenses’[i.e. protecting our right to cluster bomb whenever we want]) with a huge red target on the top portion of one of the buildings….that to me is eerie…I suppose it’s just an accurate coincidence. It’s just crazy if for any of you business grads, you were to do a SWOT analysis of The US, you know monitor their internal Strengths and Weaknesses, and external Opportunities and Threats….I guess oneof their strengths is military might and wealth(although pathetically concentrated to a minority) and their weaknesses could be deteriorating infrastructure, dwindling infrastructure spending, the loss of 100’s of 1000’s of manufacturing jobs(you know, the former wheelhouse for America and Canada) due to a firms’ fiduciary fuckin duty to please its shareholders. I wont get into the opportunities and threats(terrorists, rogue nations, aliens) ….but I will say that just like the odds of dying in a terror attack are as big as being struck by lightning, the odds of a space program to have super guns come in and out of space to take out threats to national security, are astronomically larger than the very good odds of the US imploding itself….look at the weather, the smog, traffic congestion, obesity, the housing market, Detroit’s automobile market share, Flint, Michigan, the debt, the transportation network…and of course more….Well maybe that’s why 40% of new homes in the US are in gated communities….what are they getting ready for? the looting, all the people with the right to bear arms, the grocery stores not to have food anymore, or just cuz they like a gate around their neighbourhood….
Jared Diamond says in the great book ‘Collapse’ that always, the Kings of their time heed long term problems over short term gain. look at oil profits, look at corporate exec salaries…..I think they’re milking the cow as if every drop is the last and it seems they dont care, as long as they have some twisted sense of ‘freedom’ from the reality that is……just like Easter Island when they would have cut down their last tree.to help work on their last statue of their last king….
May 29th, 2008 at 3:53 pm
Interesting time line,
it’s make you wonder did they want this monster to grow? Suicidal rates going up?Very sad. When will someone say to the US president……
“If soldiers are killing them selfs isn’t that a sign Mr. Bush that something is drasticlly wrong?”
I met Peter Mckay in an airport just after he met & showed Condoleezza Rice his home town back in 06. I asked him “What’s She really like?”
He laughed & replied “The nicest woman you’ll ever meet” good answer huh, Lol.
May 29th, 2008 at 8:21 pm
I can’t wait to get a copy of Mclellans book!! I am very excited to read what that man has to say about this “unjust war.”
I find it intriguing that while watching various news programs, they’ve seem to promote the White House representatives who speak about their relationship with Mclellan (”How surprised they are? He was never like that! What made him become this”) and when someone is backing Mclellans ideas they cut to commercial…hmmm…why would Mclellan think there is propaganda surrounding this war…and I wonder why he felt the truth would set him free…
“…if I had a bag of rocks to carry as I go, I’d just want to hold my head up high…”
-Walk Unafraid, REM (Up)
May 30th, 2008 at 8:36 am
Maybe I’m just getting old and skeptical, but I wonder why Scott McClellan swallowed all this bullshit for years, and in fact was instrumental in peddling the lies, the he suddenly has this epipheny (coincidentally he left the Whitehouse around the same time I think) and now that he is a righteous man he’s going to charge everyone $29.95 to tell us that George W. Bush is full of shit and that he used to be full of shit but he’s not anymore. I read an interesting comparison yesteray on CBC where some said that it was like Goebbels writing a book about Hitler not being a very nice guy and expecting some kind of vindication over it - pretty close I thought.
Scott: I think I will keep my money - I already know that George is full of shit and that you are too.
May 30th, 2008 at 8:53 am
[quote comment="53950"]I can’t wait to get a copy of Mclellans book!! I am very excited to read what that man has to say about this “unjust war.”
I find it intriguing that while watching various news programs, they’ve seem to promote the White House representatives who speak about their relationship with Mclellan (”How surprised they are? He was never like that! What made him become this”) and when someone is backing Mclellans ideas they cut to commercial…hmmm…why would Mclellan think there is propaganda surrounding this war…and I wonder why he felt the truth would set him free…
“…if I had a bag of rocks to carry as I go, I’d just want to hold my head up high…”
-Walk Unafraid, REM (Up)[/quote]
I’m also excited to read this book. Funny how the interview was conducted each seperately. The White House rep via satellite, and Mclellan in person on the.Today Show. Why didn’t they do something like a split screen so they both could comment to one another? After all, they consider each other a good friends and have a great amount of respect for each other. I’m sure the White House had some kind of involvement in it. I don’t know what the other networks did. Maybe I don’t understand how all of this goes down in politics.