Wasn’t there a character in a famous TV show that constantly tried to get out of the military by faking a mental illness?

If that's not a personal attack on a soldier who is suffering, I don't know what is.

And I also said your argument was lazy because you brought up NPR's supposed liberal bias and used it to question the merits of the story itself, without providing a basis for that assertion.

Does something have to play on FoxNews for you to believe it?

And thanks for letting me know that I lack emotional security and independence. Rich I tells ya, RICH!

If there be any lecturing between the two of us, I believe you are the one behind the lectern. Your personal attacks show a complete lack of emotional security and emotional independence. I would hope someone on the way to their Master's in Clinical Psychology would recognize that.

If you feel it necessary to continue this conversation, feel free to email me at fersboo-at-yahoo-dot-com or visit http://bitsblog.florack.us/

So don't lecture me with your down home psychology home-schoolin'.

Thanks for responding. Having lived with families members with both depression and drug problems and having had to deal with my own depression, it is know obvious to me that I 'obviously know nothing about depression and coping mechanisms'. Thanks for letting me know.

Cian:

I went back and reread the first couple of paragraphs; I see nothing to indicate that Spc. Jennings was incarcerated.

Instead, he was put in jail.

Having never been in a situation more threatening than a half hearted mugging by two drunks, I am in no way qualified to comment on anyone's reaction to traumatic events, but I seriously doubt there is any form of training that can prepare soldiers for the sight of a child's skull being crushed under the weight of a passing truck, just one example from a documentary on a march to New Orleans by some Iraqi veterans.

But, hey, who am to contradict the tough guys who post here risking as they do, and on a daily basis, what exactly?

I think this is what I have been thinking through the piece and comments.

I do think the military has a culture that doesn't tolerate weakness, and I know in the 90's, when my husband was in, if word got out that you were seeing a psychiatrist or similar therapist it could hurt your career, even though it wasn't supposed to. And there were ways to hurt a career with evaluations that were subtle, but harmful.

I am also not really convinced that people with serious mental disorders, combat related or not, should be serving in the military. If a guy is suicidal, discharge is probably better for his unit than trying to keep him.

I also agree that PTSD or not, you shouldn't get a bye for criminal behavior-it doesn't help the unit, if some guys are showing up late for work, and aren't physically or mentally ready to do their jobs-if you aren't doing your job, you should still be held accountable-sounds mean, but it isn't fair to guys who have been there, come back and are meeting their responsibilities.

The military absolutely needs to meet the needs of members who return with PTSD, but I am not sure that meeting their needs requires the member remain in uniform and doing only their job half assed.

But if you go to a combat zone, you are supposed to face trauma and thereafter experience stress. That's what you're supposed to do. It's your JOB. And your response to that needs to be one of two things: DEAL or QUIT. Neither of those means you get special treatment or therapy or reduced duty. Failure to understand that effectively means you are no soldier in the first place.

Two - the army has taken huge leaps forward in treating PTSD and is not simply court-martialing folks.

I can say this from personal experience with the military justice system, treatment for PTSD and dealing with accuseds who claim that they did it b/c of PTSD.

I think the question is what to do with actively serving soldiers with PTSD. Do you need to carry them on the rolls while treating them or should they be dismissed for other causes?

My nephew recently was severely injured in a stateside, non-duty accident. He had a reasonably good record and a few commendations in his jacket. If he had been drinking when the accident occurred (or worse found to be taking drugs), he would be out of the service. As it is, he had to get the O-6 to go to bat for him to get him returned to duty with his unit.

Its not as bad as the 90's, but there is still a strong culture of trying to retain the best, exiting those who are less than the best and replenish the ranks with recruits for the resulting holes. If there is doubt, chunk him out. Given the fact that how well the person performs can literally be a life or death issue, it's not hard to understand why this is the prevailing attitude.

The real question should be what they do for the PTSD post-separation. As far as separating those with PTSD, you would need to show that the PTSD soldier would be superior to the recruit alternative in order to get the mindset changed. But asking those who would literally risk their life on a future tour with a guy who missed out on the training while being treated and who is more likely to break in combat (my supposition, but I think its a reasonable one) to 'go easy' on him and not want to see him replaced is just a bit to politically correct for the situation. Its not the PTSD soldiers fault, but its not his fellow soldiers fault that they prefer not to risk their lives in the future in order to be sensitive.

I'm not citing Patton positively; just as a well-known symbol of a mindset that's very pervasive.

So I'm not sure that yesterday's Army believed in such abuse, either.

The Germans in WW1 treated PTSD with electroshock & other punishments. Many victims killed themselves.

Floyd: Well, it was largely an amateur military, ramped up rapidly from a tiny cadre to a gigantic force for the war. And Patton was an extremist even for career officers. Guys like Omar Bradley, certainly, thought Patton was over the top in this one (as do I).