Recently in War Category

My friend Tara McKelvey has published her Templeton-Cambridge research. It's about how Christian ideology has corrupted psychiatric care for some emotionally traumatized American veterans. Excerpt:

In a 2004 study of approximately 1,400 Vietnam veterans, almost 90 percent Christian, researchers at Yale found that nearly one-third said the war had shaken their faith in God and that their religion no longer provided comfort for them. The Yale study found that these soldiers were more likely than others to seek mental health treatment through the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) when they came home. It was not that these veterans had unusually high confidence in government or especially good information about services at VA hospitals. Instead, they had fallen into a spiritual abyss and were desperate to find a way out. The trauma of war seems to be especially acute for men and women whose faith in a benevolent God is challenged by the carnage they have witnessed.

More:

The story of the mistreatment of returning veterans from Iraq is well known and shocking. But the role of religious ideology in that mistreatment--how, inside the government, it was a potent tool in the betrayal of an overwhelmingly Christian Army--is much less known.

"I couldn't stand to hear that phrase any longer--'God was watching over me,'" Benimoff wrote.

He wasn't watching over the good men I knew in Iraq. Faith was the center of my life yet it failed to explain why I came home and those soldiers did not. The phrase was a Christian nicety, a cliché that when put to the test didn't fit reality.

Somehow, American pop Christianity has little or nothing of value to say to the kind of evil soldiers returning from war have seen and lived. A story like this makes me angry, because it makes psychological suffering seem like a spiritual or moral matter, i.e., "You're in pain, soldier, because you lack faith." That's not only wrong, it's cruel.

This is huge:

The US ambassador to Afghanistan has dramatically intervened in the debate about troop reinforcements, warning President Obama against committing tens of thousands of extra troops to the country.

Karl Eikenberry, a retired army general who commanded US forces in Afghanistan from 2005-2007, detailed his concerns in two classified cables last week.

Yesterday President Obama questioned Mr Eikenberry about his views by video-link during a meeting of his White House war cabinet, as he continues his lengthy deliberations on the question of troop numbers for Afghanistan.

Mr Eikenberry's concerns reportedly focused on the behaviour of Hamid Karzai, the Afghan president recently re-elected for a five-year term in a poll tainted by allegations of systematic fraud. He is said to have questioned Mr Karzai's suitability as a long-term strategic partner, because of widespread corruption in his first administration and the presence of warlords and drugs smugglers in positions of influence.

The warnings are being seen by analysts as a shot across Mr Karzai's bows, as he puts together his government before he is inaugurated for his second term on November 19.

The timing and content of Mr Eikenberry's intervention has reportedly infuriated General Stanley McChrystal, the Nato and US commander in Afghanistan, who had asked for an extra 40,000 troops to avert a looming military defeat.

Note that Amb. Eikenberry is a retired general -- in fact, the general who used to run our Afghan operation -- not a State Department desk jockey. What he seems to be saying here is that our troops are fighting and dying for a worthless government, and that's a waste.

David Frum reminds us to keep this image below and these others in mind as we struggle to figure out the meaning of Maj. Nidal Hasan's disgusting mass murder. Frum's right:

Latest report is that the shooters were U.S. soldiers, though no motive is known. The nearby hospital is begging people to come give blood. CNN quoting a soldier based at Fort Hood as having said that the base is so big that a lot of soldiers struggling with PTSD are not getting the help they need. Same soldier said that the Army has lowered its standards in recent years because it needs personnel -- that's true, not just an allegation -- but that that has meant some gang activity has been happening at Fort Hood. Not confirmed, though.

Will update this post as more information becomes available. Please contribute to the thread below.

UPDATE: CNN just reported name of the dead shooter: Maj. Malik Nadal Hasan. He was 39 or 40 years old -- not a kid. And, apparently, not a Swedish Lutheran.

Here we go...

UPDATE.2: ABC News reports that Hasan was an Army psychiatrist. Initial reports were that he was a Muslim convert, but now it's believed he was born a Muslim.
There has been talk on TV that Hasan killed his victims methodically, suggesting that this was premeditated, not a psychotic break.

UPDATE.3: Georgia imam condemns shooting. Good for him.

UPDATE.4: Now this is interesting: the Fort Hood spokesman just said on CNN that there were two shooters. If that's true, that says conspiracy. The second one is now in custody. The commanding general of the fort is going to give a presser momentarily.

UPDATE.5: AnotherBeliever, who served in Iraq and who is an Arabic linguist, posts the following:

Islam may or may not have been THE motivating factor in this attack. It may have well played some role, this is not the first instance of fragging by a Muslim soldier in this war. IF it is a case of enemy infiltration, again, it's not the first, and I doubt it will be the last. This sort of thing was fairly common during the Cold War, back when the Russians were the enemy. I put my money on psychiatric disturbance, exacerbated or fueled by the inability of this officer to square deploying to Iraq with his faith. Ultimately, and I say this as an Army Veteran, it is the U.S. Army which is responsible for letting these attacks happen. Clearly, somebody at some level dropped the ball. Probably more than one somebody. That will be investigated, of course. There are Muslim terrorists and sympathizers in this country. Fact. However, it would be counterproductive in the extreme to somehow wall all Muslims off into police-controlled ghettos, as it seems some people want to do. This would only turn the neutral and supportive portions of the populace into more sympathizers. We must engage with the whole population, identify and isolate the sympathizers, figure out who the sympathizer's leaders and influencers are, throw the book at THEM, and empower Muslim communities to stand up their own INTERNAL home-grown leaders to counter the influence of outsiders who may be backed (and financed) by terrorist groups that wish to subvert U.S. Muslims and attack Americans. This will require law enforcement people who simultaneously have real familiarity and respect for Islam and Muslims AND a commitment to countering terrorists, and a flawless information operation campaign.

Meanwhile, a retired Army officer, a colonel who worked with Hasan at Fort Hood said Hasan had been saying publicly that the U.S. ought to get out of Iraq, that Muslims ought to stand up to the aggressor. The colonel, Terry Lee, said Hasan "stuck strongly to his faith." And: "He made his views well known about how he felt about the US involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan." Lee said that at the time he retired, he was told that Hasan was being investigated. Further, Lee said Hasan was "sort of a loner" who never associated with other officers out of the office.

UPDATE.6: Holy crap -- now the commanding general of Fort Hood says that Hasan is alive, and in custody! This story gets stranger and stranger.

Seems like old times, tovarishch:

The highly decorated general sat opposite his commander in chief and explained the problems his army faced fighting in the hills around Kabul: "There is no piece of land in Afghanistan that has not been occupied by one of our soldiers at some time or another," he said. "Nevertheless much of the territory stays in the hands of the terrorists. We control the provincial centers, but we cannot maintain political control over the territory we seize.

"Our soldiers are not to blame. They've fought incredibly bravely in adverse conditions. But to occupy towns and villages temporarily has little value in such a vast land where the insurgents can just disappear into the hills." He went on to request extra troops and equipment. "Without them, without a lot more men, this war will continue for a very, very long time," he said.

These sound as if they could be the words of Lt. Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the top American commander in Afghanistan, to President Obama in recent days or weeks. In fact, they were spoken by Sergei Akhromeyev, the commander of the Soviet armed forces, to the Soviet Union's Politburo on Nov. 13, 1986.

We've already got 12 international and Afghan soldiers there for every Taliban guerrilla. And they're still winning. We know how this story ends, because we saw it before.