Showing posts with label My Papers. Show all posts
Showing posts with label My Papers. Show all posts

September 22, 2009

Blast-Related Ear Injury in Modern Warfare

Blast-Related Ear Injury in Modern Warfare

Three years after Gulf War I in 1990-1991, the Army had its first increase in hearing loss since 1974 when new hearing loss tracking methods where adopted (Chandler, 2006; Mcllwain, Gates, and Ciliax, 2008). With a 360 degree battlefield with no defined frontlines, as high as 90% of soldiers have served in a battle zone and 68% have actually engaged in combat. The realities of modern warfare have placed more than 469,095 soldiers on two to three tours of duty, fast becoming the norm. Never before have our combat troops been exposed to more than 200 days of combat in one tour, an operational tempo superior to that of WWII and Vietnam (Lee, 2009).

Further, the survival rate of wounded warriors has risen to 88%, up from 78% from the first Gulf War. About 68% of the wounded have a blast-related injury directly related to the improvised explosive device (IED), the leading weapon in the enemy’s arsenal (Mcllwain, et al., 2008). With new technology and the latest in medical advances, more soldiers survive their wounds (Chandler, 2006). The risk of hearing related injuries have exponentially exploded for the modern warrior.

According to Chandler (2006), of the 257 combat soldiers examined they found that 64% had ear injuries and hearing loss. Mcllwain et al. informs us that 47% of all medical evacuations were blast related injuries, accounting for the majority of battle related wounds. The report makes an exclamatory claim that 51.8% of combat soldiers have “moderately severe hearing loss or worse.” Lew, Jerger, Guillory, Henry (2007) report that 62% of soldiers studied and diagnosed with a blast-related traumatic brain injury (TBI) had self-reported hearing loss while 38% reported tinnitus. The majority of blast-related ear injuries were sensorineural in nature and the soldiers hearing potential will worsen over his or her lifetime (Chandler, 2006, Lew, et al., 2007).

In the coming future the Department of Defense (DoD) and the Veterans Administration (VA) will have increasing difficulties and possibilities of misdiagnosing hearing loss as an affect related to a traumatic brain injury (TBI) and or psychological problems (Chandler, 2006; Fagelson, 2007; Henry et al., 2007). Fagelson (2006) reports that, “34% of the first 300 patients enrolled in the [Veterans Administration Medical Center] VAMC Tinnitus Clinic also carried the diagnosis of [Posttraumatic Stress Disorder] PTSD” (p. 107). Further exacerbating the already precarious situation for our war wounded. Military interdisciplinary teams work together to prevent such misattributions and diagnoses and provide a holistic approach to meeting the needs of the wounded soldiers.

In the last two decades the military has cut funding to hearing conservation programs, even after research has proven the program works. As a result we have seen a marked increase in soldiers and veterans with hearing problems that tend to plague them in later years as most hearing problems increase over the years. A dreary outlook as the increase of blast-related ear injuries will continually add to the already overburdened VA (Chandler, 2006; Mcllwain et al., 2008) .

Insights and Infantry Soldiers Concerns with Hearing Conservation

The modern military Hearing Conservation Program (HCP) has been an evolution of procedures, laws and acts dating back to the General Law of 1862 and the Disability Act of 1890 that recognized hearing loss as a disability. In the first half of the twentieth century little headway was made in the advancement of hearing conservation. In the beginning of the 1900’s it was assumed that hearing loss could be prevented if a solider developed a tolerance to loud noises. This belief in a “tolerance theory” fed the Army attitude that if a soldier avoided loud noises they were considered weak (Mcllwain et al, 2008).

Soldiers in the British Army were largely ignorant of a HCP as late as 2007, fueling increases in hearing related disabilities. With noise levels of 90 decibels (dB) were enough to cause hearing damage. The infantry units were regularly exposed to levels ranging from 145 to 200 dB, enough to cause hearing impairment to a high percentage of soldiers. The report estimates that only 22% knew about a military HCP and the majority (91%) of troops said that their reasons for not wearing hearing protection or use them improperly was due to personal experiences in firearm training and combat. The soldier firing their weapons in many different atmospheres evokes a situation where extreme conditions could foster greater advancement in the research and study of hearing loss, hearing loss prevention and tinnitus (Okapala, 2007).

Tinnitus and Posttraumatic Stress Disorder

Approximately 3 to 4 million veterans have tinnitus with almost 1 million in need of varying levels of interventions (Henry et al., 2007). An avalanche of research finds evidence for a connection between tinnitus and PTSD, suggesting a co-occurring relationship and related neural mechanisms. Similarities in diagnostic criteria for symptoms of increased arousal compared to the diagnostic criteria for tinnitus, such as difficulty in falling asleep, irritability or outburst of anger, difficulty concentrating, hypervigilance and exaggerated startle response. Sleep disorders symptomology and concentration difficulties translate directly to tinnitus screening measures (Fagelson, 2007).

Several neural mechanisms linked to both tinnitus and PTSD affect auditory behaviors. Audiologists should be aware that patients with tinnitus and PTSD will require test protocols and referrals that address these powerful responses (p. 107).

Such misattributed symptoms as hypervigilance and exaggerated startle response have a relational context to irritation and anger and could be associated with tinnitus and or PTSD. The overlap of symptoms suggests that the presence of both diagnoses would exacerbate either condition bi-directionally, of 300 patients studied, 34% had both conditions.

Audiology testing must incorporate sensitivities to patients with diagnosed and undiagnosed PTSD as the startle reflex could be increased with the sudden tones and high pitches related to auditory testing. Many patients self-report the resounding silence within the sound booth as an anxiety stressor, and listed many offending characteristics of the hearing screening regimen. Trauma related disorders and audiology assessments should include screening criteria for both tinnitus and PTSD along with clinical evaluations in mental health primary-care settings.

Recognition from both clinical practices in terms of assessment protocols and treatment modalities would benefit both conditions and clinicians in. By combining a hybrid system of assessment and treatment of best-practices from audiological procedures, mental health practices and primary-care physicians on the psychological effects and the similarities in assessing for PTSD, tinnitus and hearing loss with a central focus on the impact of proper appraisals on effective treatment.

Auditory Dysfunction in Traumatic Brain Injury

“Hearing loss and tinnitus are highly prevalent in the growing population of returning soldiers who have a blast related TBI. Thus we need to develop and implement strategies for diagnosis and management of auditory dysfunction in this population” (Lew et al., 2007, p. 925). Inpatients in the VA’s rehabilitation unit admissions for TBI have increased 47% since the beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF). A subgroup of blast related (BR) veterans were reported as having 62% hearing loss with 38% of this group with tinnitus giving a clearer picture of the growing population of veterans with hearing loss attributed to TBI’s.

Forty months before the beginning (group I) of OIF and forty months after (group II), the two groups were compared, and found that group II had a significant amount of younger veterans with BR-TBI and hearing loss. This matter of younger veterans with TBI and hearing loss marks a significant change in the topology and identification of a growing population of veterans who have limited resources within the VA for an ever growing pool of patients. “In light of the high prevalence of hearing loss and tinnitus in this growing population of returning soldiers, we need to develop and implement strategies for diagnosis and management of these conditions” (p. 921).

Hence, while identifying issues with the assessment and services the full exposure and extent of problems within the continuum of care along with the bureaucratic entanglement and a lack of funding impeding effective treatments. With the battlement of statistics and cross-analytics encompassing the VA’s endless study of the problem we will see an insignificant addressing of the quandary in the short term. Endless speculation as to the causes and no end in sight to the ramblings of those that need “proof positive” before treatment remedies can begin to trickle down to the masses of veterans needing services.

Mental Health Services and Veterans with Auditory Disorders

In stark contrast to Lew et al., Kendall and Rosenheck (2008) declares that, “Although veterans disabled by auditory disorders seem to readily connect with VA mental health services, the reduced frequency or repetition of services use may require intervention” (p. 1357). They hypothesize that veterans with auditory disorders would use the VA mental health facilities less due to communication difficulties. The initial results found that disabled veterans with hearing issues had used VA mental health services at least once. Later the article states that although veterans with auditory disorders were more likely to seek initial mental health care, they were less likely to follow up on subsequent visits. This remains a national problem due to the steadily increasing in this population since 2001 will undoubtedly rise rapidly with our modern wars. In fact the report indicates that in the years 2005 there were 822,413 veterans diagnosed with a service-connected disability, a 176.2% increase in auditory disorders.

There has been some evidence that veterans with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and tinnitus have a link; it was reported that 34% of veterans seeking mental health care have both disorders. As in the VA means testing system, once you have a diagnosis equal care is given on a scale of service-connection to the medically retired.

Psychometric measures including; audio disorders, mental health disorders and traumatic brain injuries when assessed properly can be maximized through better assessments, best-care practices and joint cooperation among the differing divisions of the VA. “Mental health providers may also benefit from working as a team with other providers such as audiologist, otologists and primary care providers” (p. 1357).

Progressive Audiologic Tinnitus Management

The underlying nascence of this report collocates within the audiologic disorder of tinnitus. Tinnitus pervades and overlaps many of the audiological disorders and weaves its influence on PTSD. As we begin to better understand the nature of the most prevalent of combat injuries we perceive a depth and breadth of understanding what this actually means. PTSD, tinnitus, hearing loss and TBIs intersect into an astounding colloquial arraignment giving new meaning to the walking wounded. To meet this new paradigm we must garner new and improved assessments and treatments encompassing an amalgamation of best-fit practices and effect implementation immediately. Progressive Audiologic Tinnitus Management (PATM) modality fits this description and seeks to raise awareness to a multitude of divisions, service centers, physicians and practitioners from a holistic approach (Henry et al., 2008).

About 20% of veterans suffering from tinnitus require a clinical intervention which necessitates a progressive management approach, providing triage guidelines to facilitate appropriate care for the veteran with tinnitus and other presenting problems such as physical trauma, mental health problems, ear pain or drainage and depending on a categorical fit they would be referred to Ear, Nose and Throat (ENT), the audiology department, mental health or other specialist.

The PATM delineates which level of care the veteran would need based on a few short surveys and gives direction on the next steps such as education, interventions and treatments. The PATM consists of a five level “hierarchical approach [that] minimizes the impact of tinnitus on the patient’s life as efficiently as possible while simultaneously providing cost-effective management” (p. 14). By bringing together a concise and efficient overview of the helping process for the clinician in a generic way highlights and reinforces a collaborative spirit in assessments and treatments. Disseminating standardized direction to the helper that will best serve the veteran, a solution that would benefit from a system wide adoption within the VA system today.

Tinnitus Treatment with Customized Acoustic Neural Stimulus

Various types of treatments can significantly reduce the symptomology of hearing disorders and comorbid PTSD such as the PATM program and the Nueromonics Tinnitus Treatment (NTT) program which combines the use of acoustic stimulus augmented by a clinician and providing a structured counseling program for tinnitus management. The overall success rate of 86% gives ample reason to suspect replication of the new treatment modality and assessments across the VAMC, affecting clinical care settings such as; primary care, mental health, and emergency rooms would bring about much needed systemic change. Clinicians looking to improve the assessment of veterans with auditory disorders with mental health comorbidity would benefit from NTT.

The NTT approach “involves the use of a customized neural stimulus. This stimulus is delivered to the patient in the form of a pleasant acoustic sensation that is spectrally modified according to each patient’s individual audiometric profile” (Davis, Wilde, Steed, and Hanley, 2008, p. 330).

With the ever increasing soldiers joining the walking wounded, we need clear and concise assessment tools and treatment practices that can translate easily across the VAMC so that we can better serve those who served us. Practitioners who become more aware of the culture of the deaf and hard of hearing veterans could better accommodate their needs and help evolve the person-in-environment approach within the VAMC. By becoming aware of the unique needs of our returning soldiers and veterans we will gain an honorable response to their honorable service.

References

Chandler, D. (2006). Blast-related ear injury in current U. S. military operations: Role of audiology on the interdisciplinary team. The ASHA Leader, 11(9), 8-9, 29.

Davis, P. B., Wilde, R. A., Steed, L. G., and Hanley, P. J. (2008). Treatment of tinnitus with a customized acoustic neural stimulus: A controlled clinical study [Abstract]. ENT-Ear, Nose and Throat Journal, 87(6), 330-339.

Fagelson, M. A. (2007). The association between tinnitus and posttraumatic stress disorder. American Journal of Audiology, 16, 107-117.

Henry, J. A., Zaugg, T. L., Myers, P. J., and Schechter, M. A. (2008). Progressive audiologic tinnitus management. The ASHA Leader, 13(8), 14-17.

Kendall, C. J., and Rosenheck, R. R. (2008). Use of mental health services veterans disabled by auditory disorders. Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development, 45(9), 1349-1360.

Lee, S. A. (2009). Government and private service providers: Soldiers and veterans stuck in between. Unpublished manuscript, Kent School of Social Work, University of Louisville. http://ptsdasoldiersperspective.blogspot.com/2009/04/government-private-service-providers.html

Lew, H. L., Jerger, J. F., Guillory, S. B., and Henry, J. A. (2007). Auditory dysfunction in traumatic brain injury. Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development, 44(7), 921-928.

Mcllwain, D. S., Gates, K. and Ciliax, D. (2008). Heritage of army audiology and the road ahead: The army hearing program. American Journal of Public Health, 98(12), 2167-2172.

Myers, P. J., Henry, J. A., Zaugg, T. L., and Schechter, M. A. (n. d.). Progressive audiologic tinnitus management for veterans [Brochure]. Portland, Oregon, and Tampa, Florida: Veterans Administration (VA) National Center for Rehabilitative Auditory Research, VA Medical Center, Department of Otolaryngology/Head and Neck Surgery, and James A. Haley VA Medical Center.

Okapala, C. E. (2007). Knowledge and attitude of infantry soldiers to hearing conservation. Military Medicine, 172(5), 520-522.

June 12, 2009

Review: Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing (EMDR) in the Treatment of War Veterans

Silver, Rogers and Russell (2008) outline EMDR as an “eight-phase therapeutic approach” based on the Adaptive Information-Processing (AIP) model to treat combat veterans. The foundation of EMDR resides in the clients “neurologically based information processing” (Silver, et al., 2008, p. 948) center and employs an “adaptive resolution” mechanism from the neuroprocessor to resolve traumatic memories by utilizing the two underlying cognitions of adaptation; accommodation and assimilation. Accommodation involves the modification of our internal representations to adapt our normal operating schema. Assimilation involves utilizing an old schemata in a novel way.

When the individual traumatic experience such as combat, the mind begins to lose concordance with the internal operating system and equilibrium begins to unravel into trauma induced sequelae. EMDR seeks to reconcile the traumatic memories into a more collective consciousness within the individual by unblocking the portion of memory that has become entrenched. The combination of EMDR coupled with the AIP model corrects maladaptive behavior and cognitions through an adaptive resolution of the triggering stressor and the unprocessed memory that cause abreactions within everyday living.

The authors provide a brief overview of each phase in relation to the clinician’s main goals and expectations of the combat veteran. The treatment begins with a client history centering on the presenting problem(s), expressively the history of stressors and triggers. During the second phase the clinician prepares the client by educating her in what to expect, the clients role in treatment, information of EMDR and stress reduction techniques. An assessment follows in the third phase, concentrating on a goal-directed triggering of the patient’s affect through the client talking about the major stressors. The client has been given directions to deliberate on imagery, negative emotions and thoughts, and corporal sensations thus leading to the desensitization process.

During this step the practitioners expound on a key tenet of the procedure; the patient controls the therapy sessions and can at anytime halt the treatment. The fourth phase represents a fluid exchange between the client and the clinician where initially the patient is directed to speak of experiences shared in the history and assessment phases. The client has been informed that they do not need to disclose detailed dissections of the memories; a superficial discussion of the memories holds enough salience to stimulate eye movement. The practitioner employs a technique known as bilateral stimulation; a combination of eye movements, sounds and physical tapping to induce information processing to combine associated memories. This process proceeds until a complete resolution has been achieved. In phase five the helper helps the consumer to consolidate a new self affirmation in relation to the original stressors and formulate a novel experiential connexion to replace the trauma driven script.

The next step seeks to check bodily sensations to explore the need to reverse direction in phases or to go forward. Phase six involves a “body scan” whereby the client is directed to concentrate on the presenting problems and the newly associated positive perceptions. Bilateral stimulation can be implemented during this phase when bodily sensations do not match congruently with the recently identified cognitions. As with all therapies a closure needs to be ensured. The seventh phase addresses unfinished processing, covers the use of stress reduction and the probability of possible processing between sessions. The eighth phase includes a reevaluation and assessment to see if additional sessions would be needed to continue unprocessed memories, sensations, emotions and imagery.

In the article the authors chose to leave out two of the techniques in bilateral stimulation, the use of sounds and physical taps. I found this to be concerning, but not surprising as to the historical handling of the bastard child of psychological etiology of somatic disorders and related sequelae. Other considerations I encountered were their conclusions that EMDR therapy was “especially useful during combat situations” (Silver, et al., 2008). The article spent much of its time explaining the therapy and only one paragraph to state the argument in one of the main points in the abstract; that homework would not be necessary for using EMDR and would prove useful in a combat zone.

Considered an evidence-based practice, EMDR has weathered the storm of critics and naysayers and has attained the approval and endorsement of governmental and private entities including but not limited to the Veterans Administration, the Department of Defense and the American Psychological Association. Since the treatments inception in 1989, the efficacy has been proven to a high standard. Silver et al. (2008), reports of research on combat veterans has resulted in remission rates as high as 77% of PTSD patients. After 3-month and 9-months follow-up testing were reported to maintain the positive effects of the treatments.

One of the most interesting aspects of EMDR was the capacity to treat concurrent diagnosis such as depression and anxiety disorders in the same sessions with no distinctions made. Another feature I found that entice my interest to learn and master this therapy was empowering the client to control the procedure, mirroring a fundamental principle in social work, the strengths perspective. The final characteristic that has attracted me was the ability to maintain a safe distance from vicarious traumatization and avoid compassion fatigue that permeates the treatment of trauma based disorders.

Silver, S. M., Rogers, S., and Russell, M. (2008). Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing (EMDR) in the Treatment of War Veterans. Journal of Clinical Psychology: In Session, 64(8), 947-957.

April 24, 2009

Reflections of Self: Bridging Differences with Similarities Between Clients and Myself

In the treatment of combat related trauma, the latest research reveals that a union of therapist and client can and will eventually bring about a healing process. Whereby upon establishing trust in the clinician, the combat veteran or soldier can begin to recover compartmentalized portions of the personality and regain a sense of normalcy. Prior trauma, such as childhood neglect, abuse and sexual abuse can and will have an impact on combat trauma (Van der Hart, Nijenhuis and Steele, 2006).

Seeing as how I have connected all of the dots here before inked, I will have to take great care in safeguarding myself from becoming triggered and interacting with the client on the outside of the therapeutic window. In doing so I will need to find a mentor who I can process with and who will be able to counteract any maladjusted behavior I may exhibit. Additionally, I am in the process of receiving exposure therapy in an attempt to reintegrate my childhood memories, my combat experiences and string together a more compete autobiographical history of self.

According to Tyson (2007), working with clients who have trauma based disorders can greatly impact and “transcend the mirroring of their client’s PTSD symptoms…” thus affecting the practitioner’s expressions of self-identity and leak into every aspect of their lives. With continuing therapy, I will find myself further integrating my past trauma experiences and finding breathing room upon facing the fires of facilitation within the realm of the treatment process. Should the field of combat trauma therapy consume too much of my psych, I must endeavor to find a different avenue to help my fellow veteran.

I have such a passion to help those who I fully identify with, to help them out of the dark and into the light of recovery. The closer I attend to receive my degree, I find myself having a growing apprehension and need to “fix” myself. I do recognize the false belief here, in that I am broken, or less than. These schemas and operational tendencies I face every day and take great measures to identify them as I live them. To alleviate these fears I have decided that if the stress is too great then I will help in other areas with our veterans, such as educational benefits. I received the help of a professional social worker in gaining the benefits that I attend school with today.

With a centered focus on self, self identifying in the moment, utilizing a mentor, engaging in continued therapy and further studying of trauma therapy I will be able to safeguard the clients well being and cause no further harm to an already fragile mind. I also plan on placing objects within my office that represent my principles and values that will shape my practice and ability to reflectively engage the client rather than defensively react. I behold the gift of cynosure and have viewed the revelation of my purpose; my faith and spirituality will be the sign posts to my continued journey.

Resources


Van der Hart, O., Nijenhuis, E. R., and Steele, K. (2006). The haunted self. New York, New York: W. W. Norton and Company.

Tyson, J. (2007). Compassion fatigue in the treatment of combat-related trauma during wartime. Clinical Social Work Journal, 35, 183-192.

April 18, 2009

Government and Private Service Providers: Soldiers & Veterans Stuck in Between

Government and Private Service Providers:

Soldiers and Veterans Stuck in Between

Scott A. Lee

University of Louisville,

Kent School of Social Work

Statistics, Effects and Realities of Multiple Deployments


As of August 27, 2008, according to the Congressional Research Service (2008) 4,726 soldiers have lost their lives in combat and 32,977 troops were wounded in action, with 8,089 suffering from Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI). Veterans for America (2008) reported that 1,321,019 soldiers had been deployed to wars abroad, 796,483 or 60% had been deployed once, and an unprecedented 469,095 soldiers had been deployed two to three times a 36% of the total, and 55,441 around 4% had been deployed 4 to 6 times. With multiple tours our modern veterans will become exponentially more vulnerable to join the ranks of the walking wounded. “Department of Defense [DOD] studies prove that with each deployment Soldiers are 60% more likely to develop severe post-combat mental health problems” (italics and bold type added; Veterans for America, n.d.).

Never before in the history of American warfare have we seen such high numbers of soldiers who have been under such unimaginable stress. In World War II (WWII) only 18% of our soldiers engaged in combat, with Vietnam it was 30 to 40%, in today’s wars a stunning 68% have actually engaged in combat (Veterans for Common Sense & Veterans United For Truth, Inc vs. Veterans Administration [VA], item 54, & National Center For PTSD Fact Sheet, Aftermath of Violence sec., para. 2). Not only have more soldiers engaged in combat, they have been in combat longer with an average of 2 to 3 tours of duty. Many have been on 5 tours and some as much as 6. A summation from a member on the commission, Massachusetts state Rep. Harold P. Naughton said,

the public also should understand that the operational tempo of the current wars has exposed troops to combat for upward of 200 days at a time, far longer periods of uninterrupted combat exposure than most troops experienced in (WWII) or Vietnam (italics and bold type added; Telegram and Gazette, n.d.).

The data on multiple tours was quite disturbing, due the fact that soldiers and veterans who have more than one deployment have significantly higher rates of mental health problems. The Mental Health Advisory Team (MHAT) V, the military's research arm reports, “Soldiers on multiple deployments report low morale, more mental health problems, and more stress-related work problems. Soldiers on their third/fourth deployment are at particular risk of reporting mental health problems” (Sec. 2.2.2, No. 8). Preliminary self-reported rates of PTSD from Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) and Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) have reached 15% already, with an approximated 15 to 40% lifetime rate after combat. As high as 80-90% of our soldiers have seen someone get killed, or been in a combat zone, we have reached combat saturation (Hoge & Castro, 2005; Hoge, Auchterlonie, & Milliken, 2006).

Rand (2008) reports, of the “…1.64 million service members who had been deployed for OEF/OIF as of October 2007 (italics added), we estimate that approximately 300,000 individuals currently suffer from PTSD or major depression and that 320,000 individuals experienced a probable TBI during deployment” (italics and bold type added; p. xxi). Today 15% of our soldiers and veterans have been diagnosed with posttraumatic stress disorder and or depression. Comparatively these figures although similar in number when weighed against past wars, where in Vietnam we had 30% PTSD rates, in WWII an estimated 15% estimated in and 15 to 20% of veterans from the first Gulf War have been reported to have PTSD. It took Vietnam veterans up to 10 to 15 years before their symptoms reached the point of becoming incapacitating. The implications for our modern veterans will have monumental deleterious effects in the next 10 years, it has been projected that PTSD rates in today’s wars will reach 50 to 60%. We will be inundated with mentally ill veterans who have few options and nowhere to turn and they will run afoul with society without proper mental health interventions (Lee, 2006; Rand, 2008).

The rate of deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan will go down in infamy as we will begin to see an exponential growth in our servicemembers succumbing to the ravages of insanity. Our relatively low death rate has given more soldiers and veterans a life that most would not want to live. The progression of technology in our body armor and medical advances has produced a historically lower rate of casualties when compared to other extended wars such as Vietnam and Korea. “However, casualties of a different kind—invisible wounds, such as mental health conditions and cognitive impairments resulting from deployment experiences—are just beginning to emerge” (italics and bold type added; Rand, 2008, p. 2). Moreover, a true perspective on the soldier’s receiving the brunt of the combat duty, active-duty Army Brigade Combat Teams (BCTs) and Armored Calvary Regiments (ACRs) have been cycled through frequent deployments, in excess of 42% of the killed in action have come from BCTs and ACRs (Veterans for America, n.d.).

The Veterans Administration System is Broken

Arline Kaplan of the Psychiatric Times (2008) reports a “gathering storm” and estimates that 70% of soldiers and veterans will not seek help from federal agencies such as the DOD or the VA, placing an undue strain on private facilities and practitioners. With this in mind the public sector of mental health has little to no preparation for the oncoming onslaught of help seeking veterans and soldiers. Monahan (n.d.) reported on a Massachusetts commission that found veterans were not receiving sufficient treatment and reintegration assistance compounding the effects of successfully coping and interacting with family and within society.

More than 50% of those referred for a mental health reason were documented to receive follow-up care although less than 10% of all service members who received mental health treatment were referred through the screening program (Hoge et al., 2006). Hoge et al. ponders the reasons for such high numbers of non-diagnosed veterans,

This study shows that approximately one third of OIF veterans accessed mental health services in their first year after deployment, 12% per year received a diagnosis of a mental health problem, and an additional 23% per year were seen in mental health clinics but did not receive a diagnosis. It is not clear why there was such high use of mental health services without a mental illness diagnosis (italics and bold type added; p. 1030).

The systemic denial of veteran’s benefits has a strong bureaucratic resistance to give any compensable diagnosis coupled with “protecting the budget.” Compounding the issue for veterans and soldiers receiving help for mental health issues is the stigma attached to such help. Stereotypical views within the military culture still hold a pervasive foothold in the minds of soldiers as to the nature and problem of psychological wounds. Too many times our veterans have been on the receiving end of this same kind of generational denial and recrimination (Lee, 2006).

Similarly Hoge, Castro, Messer, McGurk, Cotting and Koffman (2004) found that of the soldiers and Marines who met the criteria for being diagnosed with a mental health problem, only 38 to 45% indicated an interest in receiving help. Furthermore, within the previous year, only 23 to 40% reported actually receiving professional help. Proof positive of this phenomenon, quoted from the infamous email from a VA hospital’s PTSD Program Coordinator, Norma Perez, “Given that we are having more and more compensation seeking veteran [sic], I’d like to suggest that you refrain from giving a diagnoses of PTSD straight out. Consider a diagnosis of Adjustment Disorder, R/O [rule out] PTSD” (Veterans for Common Sense, 2007).

Many of the studies being conducted on soldiers and veterans define cases of PTSD and depression by using invalid screening criteria not commonly used in civilian evidence-based studies, “and that are likely to exclude a significant number of servicemembers who have these conditions” (italics and bold type added; Rand, 2008, p. 48). Subthreshold cases of PTSD and depression left untreated will in all probability develop into full blown cognitive pathology and severe maladaptive symptomatology, warranting a diagnosis of a severe mental illness. Soldiers and veterans who do not receive treatment run a high risk of a mental wound becoming entrenched into their psyche, further exacerbating their problems in living full productive lives (Hoge et al., 2004; Rand 2008).

Research on past wars has generated prevalent assessments of equal or greater percentages of PTSD to our modern wars, when taken in perspective could be considered a reasonable conjecture. Except, when we consider the time frame in which these figures arose from; we must consider the phenomenon of “delayed onset PTSD” and their additive effects to the overall burden on mental health services both in private practice and the government sector. Further hypotheses calls for an increased awareness of policies and agencies and how we can meet the oncoming mental health epidemic that our soldiers, veterans and nation face (Lee, 2006; Rand, 2008).

Not only do we have this gap in services between the government and private sector, we do not have a treatment modality based upon the most up to date research, and as if this was not enough of a hill to climb, we have unfilled mental health positions in the military and at the Veterans Administration. The government system (DOD and VA) have become inundated with an ever increasing caseload of mentally ill combat soldiers and veterans. Compounding this problem, approximately 80% of military psychology positions have been filled, along with 80% of the VA positions (DeAngelis, 2008; Statement of the Honorable Patrick W. Dunne, 2007). The figures above do not reflect on other mental health service practitioners.

In a monograph report titled “Invisible Wounds of War” recently published by Rand (2008), preliminary studies indicate that protracted exposure to combat over multiple deployments will intensify the psychological stress upon our soldiers and the signature wounds on the modern battlefield; namely PTSD and TBI’s. As the suicide rates keep racking up, a growing concern over depression has been mounting and further research is needed to explore this additional pandemic. In the coming years we are going to see a growing trend in veteran suicides. On November 13, 2007 CBS reported that veterans between the ages of 20 through 24 have the highest suicide rate when compared to all other veterans in the War on Terror, almost four times higher than civilians of the same age. The suicide rate for non-veterans is 8.3 per 100,000, while the rate for veterans was found to be as high as 31.9 per 100,000.

Repeated deployments will have unforeseen consequences for our veterans and soldiers. Never before in the history of warfare have we exposed our soldiers to such prolonged combat and sustained deployments and redeployments with little to no down time needed for decompressing stressed out psyches. Combine this with the governments slow to respond, cavalier attitudes and dismissal of the magnitude and scope of the problem, our veterans and soldiers suffer in silence and when the killing, death and deprivation become too much to bear, they take their own lives in alarming rates. A perplexing and vexing realization; that we have too repeatedly educate the public and our government officials on the plight our veterans and soldiers face on a daily basis, while combating the government’s complete denial, as 120 of our veterans kill themselves every week (Keteyian, 2007; Rand, 2008).

Iraqi and Afghanistan veterans have been exposed to unprecedented levels of sustained combat. Never before in the American history of War have our soldiers seen three and four tours of combat as a common experience. Penny Coleman, author of Flashback: Posttraumatic Stress Disorder, Suicide, and the Lessons of War testified before the House Committee on Veteran’s Affairs on December 12, 2007,

My name is Penny Coleman. I am the widow of Daniel O’Donnell, a Vietnam veteran who came home from his war with what is now known as PTSD and subsequently took his own life. I use the term PTSD grudgingly—it is the official term, but it is deeply problematic. My husband did not have a disorder. He had an injury that was a direct result of his combat experience in Vietnam. Calling it a disorder is dangerous; it reinforces the idea that a traumatically injured soldier is defective, and that idea is precisely the stigma that keeps soldiers from asking for help when they need it (Statement of Penny Coleman, 2007).

She goes on to report that more than 6,200 veterans commit suicide each year. In Washington D.C. the Vietnam Memorial wall has over 58,000 names emblazon its back granite wall. Taking the figures above we can calculate more than 180,000 veterans has committed suicide since the Vietnam War ended more than 35 years ago. The VA system is poorly underfunded and not ready to take on such a high level of veterans needing mental health care as we will see in the next 10-20 years (Fischer & Reiss, 2006; Frosh, 2005; Keteyian, 2007).

Kentucky holds two major military bases where many soldiers need help but cannot or will not seek help. Further widening the barriers to care, private practitioners do not have adequate integrative therapeutic skill sets based on the latest up to date research to engage this population.

Government and Private Service Providers
Soldiers and Veterans Stuck in Between

National Defense Authorization Act of 2008, Public Law 110-81, language was added that requires a study of the clinical qualifications of Licensed Professional Counselors (LPCs) and outline regulatory policies to provide guidance on private practice. LPCs can practice under the umbrella and scrutiny of TRICARE, a triple option benefit plan available for military families. The crux of the issue with serving our servicemembers and families lies in obtaining independent practice authority. The policies as they stand today effectually block service members from receiving proper mental health care. The oppressive doctrine of the DOD and TRICARE leaves servicemembers vulnerable to repeated post-traumatic decline while wading through a sea of authorizations, regulations, and additional fees stemming from physician appointments to receive sanctions for mental health care (Kieffer, M., personal communication, February 22, 2009; American Counseling Association (ACA), Access, 2009).

The governmental bureaucracy inhibits and discriminates against LPCs in that they have similar training and education as other clinical professionals who practice on a master’s level. They must work under direct supervision of a primary care physician who has not received specialized training to adequately oversee mental health services. Further, to access TRICARE the soldier must receive a referral from their primary care physician and even then approval of such allocates only 10 sessions before they must go back and achieve approval for additional help. With a shortage of specifically skilled practitioners in mental health, the soldier suffering from post-combat stress faces hurdles that he or she may not be able to cope with. With the convoluted system of today we miss out on access to over 100,000 qualified mental health counselors on a national scale (Kieffer, M., personal communication, February 22, 2009; ACA, Access, 2009; ACA, Progress, 2009).

Recently a bill was introduced, H.R. 952: Combat PTSD Act of 2009 that establishes the definition of,
‘combat with the enemy,’ for purposes of proof of service-connection for veterans’ disability compensation, as service on active duty: (1) in theater of combat operations during a period of war; or (2) in combat against a hostile force during a period of hostilities.

In designating a succinct criterion for activities in a war zone, the Act lifts the burden of proof from the servicemembers or veteran. In doing so, the veteran or soldier can expedite service-connection compensation and receive treatment conducive to their symptomatology.
Harvard University (2007) dispensed a report with conclusions that (a) the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) has been overrun with help seeking veterans and will not be able to meet the increasing needs of combat veterans without a substantial increase in funding. (b) The Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) has been struggling with a high volume of pending claims and do not have the capability to process the current pending claims. A tsunami of returning veterans will inundate the capacity of the VBA and will jam up the system further. (c) A budget of $350 to $700 Billion expenditure will be required to cover treatment over the course of the Iraqi and Afghanistan veterans lives. “Key recommendations include: increase staffing and funding for veterans medical care particularly for mental health treatment; expand staffing and funding for the ‘Vet Centers’ and restructure the benefits claim process at the [VBA]” (Harvard University, 2007, p. 1). The VA has acknowledged that “waiting lists render that care virtually inaccessible.” When the projected 700,000 veterans reach an already overwhelmed VA, the care will considerably drop and possibly leading to more suicides.

Joshua Omvig Veterans Suicide Prevention Act of 2007 recognizes the urgency of establishing new training initiatives and programs to combat the veterans and soldiers taking their own lives can and should be avoided with proper interventions. The Act designates a comprehensive program for suicide prevention; including Suicide Prevention Counselors, best practices research, sexual trauma research, establishes a 24-hour hotline and mental health care, outreach and psychoeducation for veterans and families and a peer support program. “The high rate of using mental health services among Operation Iraqi Freedom veterans after deployment highlights challenges in ensuring that there are adequate resources to meet the mental health needs of returning veterans” (Hoge et al., 2006, p. 1023).

Resources

American Counseling Association, Office of Public Policy and Legislation. (2009).
Access to Counseling Department of Defense’s TRICARE Health Services Program (Position Papers). Washington, DC, February 2, 2009 (No. 02.02.09). Atlee, P.

American Counseling Association, Office of Public Policy and Legislation. (2009). Progress on Implementation of New Veterans Affairs Law (Position Papers). Washington, DC, March 20, 2009 (No. 03.20.09). Atlee, P.

Harvard University: John F. Kennedy School of Government. (2007). Soldiers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan: The long-term costs of providing veterans medical care and disability benefits. (Issues Brief No. RWP07-001). Chicago, Illinois: Bilmes, L.

Brook, T. V. (2008, August 12). Report: 57% of troops sent on combat tours. USA Today. Retrieved October 12, 2008, from http://www.navytimes.com/news/2008/08/gns_deployments_081108/

Congressional Research Services (2008). United States military casualty statistics: Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom. CRS Report RS22452. Retrieved on October 29, 2008, from http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RS22452_20080909.pdf

Combat PTSD Act of 2009, H.R. 952, 111th Cong., session 1 (2009).

DeAngelis, T. (2008). Psychology’s growth careers [Electronic version]. Monitor on Psychology, 39(4), 64-7.

Fischer, C. & Reiss, D. (2006). Battle at home. Registered Nurse: Journal of Patient Advocacy, 102(8), 14-21.

Frosh, D. (2005, January 6). Soldier’s heart: Thousands of Iraq War veterans will come home to face serious psychological problems and a system that may not be ready to help them. Tucson Weekly, Feature Article. Retrieved April 15, 2009, from http://www.tucsonweekly.com/tucson/Currents/Content?oid=64343

Hoge, C. W., Castro, C. A., Messer, S. C., McGurk, D., Cotting, D. I. & Koffman, R. L. (2004). Combat duty in Iraq and Afghanistan, Mental health problems, and barriers to care. The New England Journal of Medicine, 351(1), 13-22.

Hoge, C. W. & Castro, C. A. (2005). Impact of combat duty in Iraq and Afghanistan on the mental health of U.S. soldiers: Findings from the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research Land Combat Study. In Human Factors and Medicine Panel Symposium: Strategies to maintain combat readiness during extended deployments – A human systems approach (pp. 11-1 – 11-6). Neuilly-sur-Seine, France: RTO.

Hoge, C. W., Auchterlonie, J. L., & Milliken, S. M. (2006). Mental health problems, Use of mental health services, and attrition from military service after returning from deployment to Iraq or Afghanistan [Electronic version]. Journal of the American Medical Association, 295, 1023-1032.

Joshua Omvig Veterans Suicide Prevention Act of 2007, Pub. L. No. 110-110, § 121 Stat. 1720F (2007).

Kaplan, A. (2008). Untreated vets: A “Gathering Storm” of PTSD/Depression [Electronic version]. Psychiatric Times, 25(12).

Keteyian, A. (2007, November, 13). Suicide epidemic among veterans. CBS News. Retrieved on April 15, 2009, from http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/13/cbsnews_investigates/main3496471.shtml

Lee, S. A. (2006). Effects of combat on returning veterans. Unpublished manuscript, Jefferson Community and Technical College at Louisville Kentucky.

Mental Health Advisory Team [MHAT] V. (2008). Operation Iraqi Freedom 06-08. Office of the Surgeon Multi-Nation Force Iraq and Office of the Surgeon General United States Army Medical Command.

Monahan, J. J. (n.d.). Panel finds vets not seeking help: Hidden wounds unreported. Telegram and Gazette. Retrieved April, 13, 2009 from http://www.telegram.com/article/20090115/NEWS/901150680/1116

National Center for PTSD (n.d.). The unique circumstances and mental health impact of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Retrieved December 23, 2008, from http://www.ncptsd.va.gov/ncmain/ncdocs/fact_shts/fs_iraqafghanistan_wars.html

Powers, R. (2005). Deployment rates, United States military. About.com. Retrieved on December 26, 2008, from http://usmilitary.about.com/od/terrorism/a/deploymentrates.htm

Rand Corporation (2008). Invisible Wounds of War: Psychological and Cognitive Injuries, Their Consequences, and Services to Assist Recovery. Retrieved December 23, 2008, from http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2008/RAND_MG720.pdf

Statement of the Honorable Patrick W. Dunne, Rear Admiral, U. S. Navy (ret.), Assistant Secretary for Policy and Planning, U. S. Department of Veterans Affairs: Hearing before the Subcommittee on National Security and Foreign Affairs, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, U. S. House of Representatives, 110th Cong., 1 (2007).

Statement of Penny Coleman, Author of Flashback: Posttraumatic Stress Disorder, Suicide, and the Lessons of War: Hearing before the Committee on Veteran’s Affairs, U. S. House of Representatives, 110th Cong., 1 (2007).

Veterans for America (n.d.). Talking points: The consequences of churning & weekend warriors to frontline soldiers. Retrieved October 29, 2008, from http://www.veteransforamerica.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/talking_points.pdf

Veterans for America (2008). The Alaska Army National Guard: A “Tremendous Shortfall.” Retrieved April, 2009, from http://www.veteransforamerica.org/wp- content/uploads/2008/10/vfa-alaska-ng-report.pdf

Veterans for Common Sense & Veterans United For Truth, Inc vs. Veterans Administration, C- 07-3758-SC, 2007 U.S. Dist.

December 15, 2008

The Modern Combat Veteran: Dissociative Posttraumatic Stress Disorder & Influences on Criminality

The following is a paper that I have completed for my Social Work Law class, parts of the paper I have been writing about in my blog. The paper ties together the evolution in my train of thought concerning the veteran or soldier consumed by the ravages of full blown PTSD.

The paper is long, but relevant to the plight of our returning combat soldiers and veterans. If you want to understand more about why a veteran or soldier runs afoul with law and society then you should read this.



Running Head: VETERANS, DISSOCIATIVE PTSD AND CRIMINALITY

Scott A. Lee
Kent School of Social Work, University of Louisville
November 3, 2008

The Modern Combat Veteran:
Dissociative Posttraumatic Stress Disorder and Influences on Criminality

Statistics

As of August 27, 2008, according to the Congressional Research Service (2008) 4,726 soldiers have lost their lives in combat and 32,977 troops were wounded in action, with 8,089 suffering from Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI). The USA Today (2008) reported that 68% of all soldiers have been deployed to a combat zone, 31% have been deployed more than once and 2,358 have had more than five tours of duty.

The United States Department of Justice (2004) reports that, “[t]he majority of veterans in State (54%) and Federal (64%) prison served during a wartime period….[that] Vietnam War-era veterans were the most common wartime veterans in both State (36%) and Federal (39%) prison.” The 57% majority of State prisoners were serving time for a violent crime compared to less than half of non-veterans who were serving less time for similar crimes. The report indicates the Iraq-Afghanistan era veterans comprise 4% of both prison populations (U. S. Department of Justice [USDJ], 2004).

Posttraumatic Stress Disorder: Dissociation and Other Considerations
  
PTSD is a life-long endeavor; there is no cure for it. The triggering traumatic event changes the landscape of the mind, it no longer works in the same fashion that it did before. The mind has been rewired; the neuropathways have been altered into a continuous loop. The PTSD triggering incident converts the fight or flight response in the primitive portion of our brain. Imagine having that scared feeling you get without the fear while keeping the bodily reactions; the tenseness, the adrenalin rush, the mind racing, heightened senses, and the hyper response reflex to react without thinking.

The incident that solidifies the mental wound of PTSD results in a mind numbing, or psychic shift. In response to the trauma of combat, the person needs to make a mental detachment to do what needs to be done. The survival mode of operation forgoes the higher levels of functioning and depends on the primitive reactionary portion of the brain. When this unconscious detachment has been activated to frequently or for extended amounts of time it becomes part of conscious processing and interferes with everyday interactions (Lee, 2006; and Cerone, 2006). According to Howell (2005), dissociation refers to,
the separation of mental and experiential contents that would normally be connected. The word dissociation is laden with multiple meanings and refers to many kinds of phenomena, processes, and conditions. Dissociation is both adaptive and maladaptive, both verb and noun, both cause and effect….Dissociation is often psychologically defensive, protecting against painful affects and memories, but can also be an organismic an automatic response to immediate danger….Dissociation can be understood as taxonic or, varying in degrees….It is both occurent and dispositional….It refers to such psychical events as spacing out, psychic numbing, and even experiencing oneself as floating above one’s body. Dissociation has been thought of in spatial metaphor, as acts of ‘keeping things apart’ as well as ‘vertical splitting’ (p. 18).
The mind can develop into split affective regions where multiple self-states dissociate incompatible values systems and set up residence along with establishing a unified substructure within matching internal guidance systems. The dissociated subsystems run parallel to other self-states and emerge when a particular skill set needs asserting pertaining to situational interactions. Here trauma based disorders may lead the symptomology to further entrenchment and compartmentalization that may lead to personality disorders. “A war veteran with PTSD might have more significant structural dissociation, involving the sequestration of more and larger portions of experience” (p. 22).

A defined preconditioned set of beliefs and values, the combat schema enables the warrior to navigate efficiently through the adversity of combat without a detailed consideration of consequences. I propose a unique set of beliefs, Combat Values Theory (CVT), based on the survival of self in relation to the context of war and the “combat-othering”, for we must wholly demonize our adversary and in the process dehumanize ourselves. The combat veterans primitive fight or flight defensive mechanism has been repressed through the training in the military, conditioning the troop to take up the fight portion leaving a proclivity for violence without a concern for personal safety. Too engage in a mortal fight with the enemy this schema spells out the actions in a given situation without becoming preoccupied with survivability in the moment which could get a soldier killed.

The warrior with PTSD has grown accustomed to the value and belief systems of war and feels threatened when they become faced with having to let go of this security in an attempt to reintegrate back into society. Howell describes animal defensive and posttraumatic biological states,
The human animal may have a repertoire of discrete behavioral states that are adaptive to conditions of predation….[t]hese animal defense states may underlie different dissociative parts of the personality….[t]his begins a neurophysiological alarm reaction…[and]…a tendency to over read cues as threatening, which can increase the probability for violence (p. 29).
The ambiguity inherent in social dynamics can lead to mixed feelings or even a lack of feelings depending on the degree of interpersonal relatedness to the returning combat veteran (RCV). We rely on our parental figures to shape healthy personality and values structures through attachments with significant others, the attachments become avenues of exchange, a distillation of proper interactions and expectations according to society norms. When this exchange becomes distorted to the point of the child becoming a repository of negative energy, instead a healthy exchange solidifying proper boundaries, then the nature of our attachments may become warped and disorganized further compounding the RCV’s reintegration.

The combat attachments born of blood do not leave us because we depart the battlefield; they become an empty feeling inside of us. The soldier develops a highly narrow functioning self-organization in conjunction with his or her other squad members. This organization, "troop-organism," becomes an extension of the combat-self, no different than an arm or leg. We do not will our arms or legs to move, we react from the expectations of intentional imagery based upon the combat values structure. It happens, such as the members of the "squad-herd" where each part of the troop-organism and acts in a homogeneous way, each troop becoming part of the others self-states.

These attachments to the other require a splitting within the interpersonal self-states where many such dissociated selves birth into existence, as each of the value system constructs do not match and out of necessity, develops into a complete compartmentalized persona while maintaining the "whole" sub-self organizations. Each of the self-states run parallel to one another and have the capacity of switching back and forth when the proper situation requires appropriate specialized skill sets. The interpersonal self of the civilian self becomes supplanted and filed away by the combat self due to the incompatibility of the value structures for survivability that requires a conforming from a civilian society to the norms of the combat environment.

Attachments can be considered the path to rigidity or vehicles of spontaneity; to become spontaneous the person must develop a mechanism for the free exchange of intimacy through beneficial interpersonal skill sets. Without a healthy development of attachments then disorganized attachments (d-attachments) form. The d-attachments become the mechanism to gauge interactions in the environment and in doing so they become rigid, an if this then that experiential existence. The d-attachment arraignment only allows for what can be controlled under a series of contingencies plans, or procedural knowledge, usually modeled after our parental attachments, an identification with the aggressor or other such negative role model. Becoming an identity of an exclusionary “personal culture” where the individual becomes estranged from regular society and defending their boundaries as they were national borders between two hostile countries (Howell, 2005; & Lee, 2006).

The cycle of procedural enactments play out in significant others that we allow in our lives, the reason why we keep having the same dramatizations and arguments while never finding a resolution. We enact our past roles and project them into our relationships cast from our childhood in an attempt to resolve the attachments constructively. Since we have not been shown healthy attachment enactments we reside in the cycle of d-attachments and further compound our disorders through retraumatization and or neglect, predisposing the person to develop trauma based disorders and or personality disorders (Howell, 2005).

Without a reintegration of the self and of attachments and d-attachments, a combat veteran can and will run afoul of friends, family and society. The returning combat veteran faces hurdles that they have not been trained to handle, the training and experiences they have navigated and survived will lead them to think a civilian life will be easy compared to the battle life. What they fail to realize is that they have replaced their civilian self with an operational combat value system and attachments, where in American society the individual has the utmost consideration further combining and compounding issues of integration. Little concentration on developing healthy attachment systems the untenable situation can lead the RCV with severely dysfunctional interpersonal skills and a mechanism of perpetual isolation.

Indoctrination 

Combat alters and modifies the value system, a preconditioned set of beliefs, entailing a value-orientated constitute of definitions of situation in terms of direction of solutions and action dilemmas, formulating a culture of killing, stripping the combat vet of the niceties that lubricate society’s interactions, which in combat would result in death. In combat the fluidity of boundaries becomes awash in the relational adaptation to an integral cohesion with their battle buddies, a devolution of survival mindset develops and provides a sense of safety; the germination of base natural selection process by successful integration of the combat value system. With a disproportionate 56% of Army veterans incarcerated, the Army culture seems to generate people more prone to violence (USDJ, 2004).

The war zone recons the birthing of the “trooper organism,” where the firing squad becomes integrated with one other with a culture of survival. The individual boundary of the soldier submerges within the organismal boundaries of the trooper organism while shedding the individual identity. The troop organism allows for the diffusion of immense responsibility over all involved making the transition to an evolution of survival more manageable wherein the herd mentality brings forth the primitive instinctual remnants and the decentralization of obligation. Military culture portrays the combat arms military occupational specialty (MOS) as having more cultural capital and esteem. The infantry MOS with combat decorations increases the rate of promotion, rank and respectability while non-combat soldiers tend to be over looked (Lee, 2006; and Howell, 2005).

Situational Imprisonment
  
Military enculturalization subsumes CVT into an identification born of survival and dependent on the assimilation of the “firing squad mind set”, where one troops thoughts relates to an extension of his battle buddies. The fluidity of boundaries births the “troop organism” and forever impairs the RCV to return home without his “other selves.” Now the RCV has to try and interrelate without his relational attachments and attempts to reintegrate back into the civilian world where nothing makes sense anymore, where boundaries cross without attachments as a normative experience triggering perceived threat-states. This leads RCV to become his own “isolated island organism,” or an identity incomplete without the other part of the firing squad, that thinks, feels and acts as they do. The RCV becomes unable to interrelate with family and community in a meaningful way, impeded by the fluidity of boundaries.

As their safety has been compromised, a feeling of abject detachment has arisen from the conditioned reality of the combat organism that depended upon the battle buddy “having his back.” Therein leading to a sense of safety, the combat vet needed only to worry about their own personal “line of sight” in a battle field environment requiring a 360 degree threat radius. On his own in society this burden becomes an impossibly overwhelming sense of danger engulfing the RCV, leading to a susceptibility to triggers. A culture of 360 degree radius in the battlefield and shackled intimately with the culture of combat values, hereinto relying on the troop attachments and the evolution of survival, the RCV becomes stuck on the troop-organism functionality.

The troop-organism capacity becomes problematic to the integration of the “civilian-self” as it now has become supplanted by the “combat-self.” An attachment of the self to the self that is the identity of one whom sufficiently succeeds in suffering, completing the veteran and familial rift. The fluidity of boundaries in an intimate relationship with a loved one becomes a threat to the RCV due to the misidentification of signals between the two, one having adapted an independent perspective and the other a dysfunctional dependent state. The crossed-signals of the significant others has complicated the adaptation from independent relational skills verses over dependence and the perceived threatening self states with both parties expectations of returning to “the way it was.”

Compounding the issue, the RCV has now been conditioned to the “culture of killing” and the relational fluidity of boundaries between the two have become incompatible, further given rise to the RCV’s sense of threat as he where in combat. In combat a registering between non-compatible boundaries would be reconciled by a reflexive reactionary exercise of survival, triggering the culture of killing (Kirmayer, Rousseau, and Lashly, 2007). “Those supporting the use of culture as a defense argue that is it intrinsically unfair to judge someone exclusively by the rules and values of a society that he or she does not know” (p. 98). The above goes to the creation of a Veterans Court, where culture competency would require a special understanding of combat vets cultural “shaping.”

Criminal Behavior, Context and Responsibility
  
“[T]rauma exposure and symptoms of PTSD are prevalent among incarcerated veterans….[e]xposure to combat was the trauma most likely to lead to PTSD among males in a general population survey of 5, 877 individuals, [totaling] 19 percent” (Saxon, A. J., Davis, T. M., Sloan, K. L., McKnight, K. M., McFall, M. E. and Kivlahan, D. R., p. 962, 2001). Saxon et al. indicated a higher prevalence for PTSD in incarcerated veterans than the general population. Additionally veterans who screened positive for PTSD had significantly higher numbers of childhood trauma, indicating a possible correlation between peritraumas, military culture and past traumatization.
Taking culture into account means that the purposes of the criminal justice system—which include prevention and rehabilitation—can be achieved more effectively. Cultural awareness must be coupled with an equally astute political awareness that traces the consequences of clinical or forensic consultations out into the larger society (Kirmayer et al., 2001, p. 101).
Before the Insanity Defense Reform Act of 1984, questions of the “ultimate issue” when a defendant plead insanity in federal court was whether he lacked “the substantial capacity either to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law” (As cited in Buchanan, 2006, p. 14). After the bill was enacted, the question now goes to whether he “appreciated the nature and quality or the wrongfulness of his acts” (p. 14). “Case law and the Rules’ legislative history suggest also that in less clear cases an issue’s ‘ultimate’ status hinges on who has the authority to decide it…because it amounted to an ‘ultimate opinion’” (pp. 14-15). Psychiatric expertise falls under the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR), Part 35, whereby the duty of the assessor, in an expert capacity, is to help the court. A mental defense with the question of competency will rely on the weight of cognitive capacities.

With our modern soldiers averaging two to three tours of combat, we will begin to see an increasing epidemic of incarcerated veterans. In the next 10 to 15 years the American public will see a sharp rise in veterans suffering from Post-Traumatic-Stress-Disorder, to the point of epidemic proportions. You see, never before in war have our troops been subjected to such prolonged exposure to combat and life threatening situations. In World War II our troops were fighting a defined enemy while engaging real objectives with sufficient downtime in between engagements. Most of the troops to see combat were infantry soldiers fighting on a distinct front, not the ones "in the rear with the gear". With a real threat to our sovereignty and way of life soldiers of this era were less affected by the trauma of war.

The significant political interference of the Vietnam War generated little to no tangible objectives for our soldiers solidifying and branding their levels of anxiety and forever troubling their minds. Guerrilla warfare, an inherently cognitively damaging military action compounded the neuropathic damage experienced by our troops in Vietnam. Even with the troops having regular downtime in between engagements the cognitive fractures of these veterans were enhanced by more intense combat and the rejection of our returning soldiers.

The soldiers in the Iraqi war have been sent on multiple deployments with an average of two or three tours of duty with little time in between. While in Iraq, there are no friendly countries or areas to spend leave time to relieve stress while residing on constant alert and most, even non-combat soldiers, see combat or threats on a daily basis. Now combine this with the most intensive warfare possible, guerrilla warfare in an urban environment. We get troops that are overextended and overexposed to life threatening situations within unprecedented levels of combat. Our troops in Iraq have no respite from danger, further entrenching the effects of PTSD through the hyper levels of neurotransmitters (Lee, 2008).

Dissociated attachments reenact combat trauma somatically and between interstates within the RCV resulting in a “civil war” amongst oneself. A seemingly supra-intelligent guidance of the unconscious, this device of PTSD that engages in the survival defensive mechanisms that has sustained the combat veterans life on a persistent basis. Thus becoming the protector and a “conceptualization of hostile self-states in ‘personified narcissistic and sociopathic defenses’ that defend against dependency, vulnerability, and guilt…[and]…applies just as well to pathological narcissism” (Howell, 2005, p. 224). The ‘diminished capacity’ rule would apply when dissociative episodes result in a “psychotic” break, whereby a thought disorder could be ascribed.

Diminished capacity resulting in a thought disorder would be split between two categories; one being “disturbances in the content of thinking and perceiving (hallucinations and delusions), and… [the second would be]…disturbances in the form of thinking (formal thought disorder)” (Young, 2003, para. 7). Procedural memory becomes disengaged from experiential memories where reactionary encoding enables the maladaptive somatic response encoded reactions needed during survival in the moment situations. Multiple self-states dissociate and boundaries within boundaries abound.

I am just now starting to sift through the sea of case law and journal articles on the considerations of PTSD and criminality; unfortunately I think that there will be an ever increasing need for individuals well versed in the pitfalls of combat trauma and difficulties in reintegration. I feel as you do that something needs to be done to address this issue head on, such as a Veterans Court much like the one just established in Minnesota. Additionally, we have only begun to see the tide of returning veterans with psychological troubles facing criminal charges.

Never before in the history of American warfare have we seen such high numbers of soldiers who have been under unimaginable stress. In WWII 18% of our soldiers actually engaged in combat, with Vietnam it was 30-40%, today 68% have actually engaged in combat (Veterans for common Sense & Veterans United For Truth, Inc v. Veterans Administration, item 54, & National Center For PTSD Fact Sheet, Aftermath of Violence section, paragraph 2). Not only have more soldiers engaged in combat, they have been in combat longer with an average of 2 to 3 tours of duty. Many have been on 5 tours and some as much as 6. As high as 80-90% of soldiers (Hoge, C. W., Auchterlonie, J. L., and Charles S. M., 2008, results section, paragraph 5) have seen someone get killed, or been in a combat zone, we have reached "Combat Saturation."

Today 15% (300,000; Rand Corporation, 2008) of our soldiers and veterans have been diagnosed with PTSD and this seems like it may be a smaller number compared to other wars. 30% PTSD rates in Vietnam, 15% estimated in WWII and 15-20% of Gulf War I vets reported to have PTSD. It took Vietnam veterans up to 10-20 years before their symptoms reached the point of becoming debilitating. The implications for our modern veterans will have monumental deleterious effects in the next 10 years, it has been projected that PTSD rates in today's wars will reach 50-60%. We will be inundated with mentally ill veterans who have few options and nowhere to turn and they will run afoul with the law (Lee, 2006).

Today we have become faced with a growing trend of soldiers and veterans becoming enmeshed in the court systems. In direct conflict with the perception in the media I propose the theory that our veterans and soldiers face an insufficient mental health care which has a major impact to their lives, families and communities. The problem is not individualistic but systemic requiring major changes in how we view and treat PTSD. The care of our soldiers and veterans is not being met and we have just begun to see the aftereffects of the mind shattering results of combat trauma. Untreated PTSD can destroy the lives of many, not only the soldier and veteran. We send our soldiers to war for our freedom and then lock them up when they are broken and of no use anymore (Lee, 2008).

Suggested Guide to Help Your Veteran or Soldier Diagnosed with PTSD
and Charged With a Crime

To whom it may concern,

I would suggest that you start researching about PTSD right away. The mind-body connection and interactions, the psychology of PTSD, defensive mechanisms, how the mind responds to trauma, the symptoms of PTSD, how extended combat (such as multiple tours served) effects soldiers and veterans, legal ramifications of criminal behavior and PTSD, the processes of the psychic split from reality and past combat experiences, how anxiety plays an everyday part of our lives, how ordinary stress can lead to higher levels of stress and extreme responses and flashbacks, the nature of flashbacks, the nature of triggers and how they apply to PTSD, and the mental compartmentalization that happens to a PTSD survivor. This is by no means a comprehensive list, but should give you some kind of idea of where you might want to start.

Like it or not, this has consumed your life by no choice of your own, instead of letting that energy overwhelm you and feeling helpless, turn that energy into a useful endeavor and focus it toward finding out as much as possible about PTSD and the effects of combat. You have more passion about this subject than anyone, use this as an opportunity to help your loved one get a fair trial and to force the courts to consider his/her mental illness as a contributing factor in their actions.

Do not take no for an answer from his/her lawyer as to your wanting to get involved in your significant others case, jump into his/her pocket and become the "paralegal" and find them the information that needed for fair consideration of the case. Most lawyers will resist this from you, again do not take no for an answer. I am guessing that the lawyer will probably be a public defender; they are overloaded with cases and cannot really give the appropriate attention that their caseload needs. So, you need to assume that role of "defender" and information detective, this can greatly impact the outcome of the trial.

Consider trying to find a high profile lawyer who will take the case on pro bono; this type of case has become a hot topic in the news and media. A lawyer might take a case for this reason and could benefit the outcome. Go to the clerk’s office and get a copy of the court case file, this will help you by becoming familiar with the states perspective on the case and what exactly is being done. Educate yourself in Miranda rights (If they violated his rights here, this could have a considerable impact on the outcome), federal constitutional law concerning 1st, 4th (emphasis here), 5th, 6th and 8th amendments, along with state constitutional law. Educate yourself on how the court works, the proceedings, when and where evidence can be brought, the questioning of witnesses and how that process is different in every aspect of the trial.

Educate yourself on case law concerning PTSD and other mental illnesses where a consideration or precedent has been set, this can be used in your case and can greatly influence what happens. Look into your state laws first as they will have the most sway, because state law guides state cases first, then look to federal law to find precedents and findings where PTSD was considered in the sentencing phase. Concentrate on first on the main trial part where the evidence and witnesses will be displayed then on the sentencing. Both of these parts of the overall court proceedings will be the most important part, your soldier or veteran’s fate will be decided between these two proceedings.

Educate yourself on and things to do:
  • Do not talk with the police or anyone else until you have talked with your lawyer, what you say will be used against you
  • learn your rights and assert them, you do not have any rights if you do not know your rights
  • get a copy of court case file
  • get a copy of VA file and military file
  • jump in your lawyers pocket
  • try to find a pro bono lawyer
  • individual rights, Miranda and if they were violated
  • legal proceedings, structure of court formalities and rules of law
  • psychology of PTSD
  • case law, state and federal, concentrating on the main trial and sentencing process
  • constitutional law
  • legal responsibilities of the judge, your lawyer and the prosecutor
  • find a support group
  • contact your senator, congressperson
  • contact your local VFW, AMVETS, or veterans associations
I know that this seems like too much, just figure out what is coming next and then concentrate your efforts into that. Take one court proceeding at a time and concentrate on the legalities of that part of the process and use it as a guide to where you need to research and what you should do. The structure of the next proceedings will be your sign post for the direction you need to concentrate on. You can do this, if you accept that you have been put on this earth for this.

You were born to do this; this may be your purpose in life, to be the freedom fighter for all veterans and soldiers who will face similar tribulations. You have more vested in this than anyone else, you have more to lose, do not stand by and be a spectator. Get involved and later you will not have the guilt of "I wish I had done something". A most important issue to face would be finding a support group that you feel safe with and trust. You cannot do this alone, enlist the help of as many people that you can. Contact your congressperson, senator and your local VFW, AMVETS, DAV or American Legion. This is only a suggestion for what to do. I have compiled this list and information as a suggested guide for personal empowerment.

Thank you for listening and God bless,

Scott Lee

References
  
Appelbaum, P. S., Jick, R. Z., Grisso, T., Givelber, D., Silver, E., and Steadman, H. J. (1993). Use of posttraumatic stress disorder to support an insanity defense [Electronic version]. American Journal of Psychiatry, 150(2), 229-234.

Brook, T. V. (2008, August 12). Report: 57% of troops sent on combat tours. USA Today. Retrieved October 12, 2008, from http://www.navytimes.com/news/2008/08/gns_deployments_081108/

Bourget, D., and Whitehurst, L. (2007). Amnesia and crime [Electronic version]. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 35(4), 469-480.

Buchanan, A. B. (2006). Psychiatric evidence on the ultimate issue [Electronic version]. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 34(1), 14-21.

Cercone, K. (2006). Brain based learning. In E. K. Sorensen (Ed.), Enhancing learning through technology (pp. 293-322). Hershey, PA: Information Science Publishing.

Congressional Research Services (2008). United States military casualty statistics: Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom. CRS Report RS22452. Retrieved on October 29, 2008, from http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RS22452_20080909.pdf

Hoge, C. W., Auchterlonie, J. L., and Charles S. M. (2006). Mental health problems, Use of mental health services, and attrition from military service after returning from deployment to Iraq or Afghanistan [Electronic version]. Journal of the American Medical Association, 295, 1023-1032.

Howell, E. F. (2005). The dissociative mind. Hillsdale, NJ: The Analytic Press.

Kimayer, L. J., Rousseau, C. and Lasley M. (2007). The place of culture in forensic psychiatry [Electronic version]. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 35(1), 98-101.

Lee, S. A. (2006). Effects of combat on returning veterans. Unpublished manuscript, Jefferson Community and Technical College at Louisville Kentucky.

Lee, S. A. (2008). Combat veterans and institutions: A systems analysis. Unpublished manuscript, Kent School of Social Work at the University of Louisville.

National Center for PTSD. (n. d.). The unique circumstances and mental health impact of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Retrieved December 23, 2008, from http://www.ncptsd.va.gov/ncmain/ncdocs/fact_shts/fs_iraqafghanistan_wars.html

Mezey, G. (2006). Post-traumatic stress disorder and the law [Electronic version]. Psychiatry, 5(7), 243-247.

Poortinga, E., and Guyer, M. (2007). Criminal responsibility and intent [Electronic version]. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 35(1), 124-125.

Powers, R. (2005). Deployment rates, United States military. About.com. Retrieved on December 26, 2008, from http://usmilitary.about.com/od/terrorism/a/deploymentrates.htm

Rand Corporation (2008). Invisible Wounds of War: Psychological and Cognitive Injuries, Their Consequences, and Services to Assist Recovery. Retrieved December 23, 2008, from http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2008/RAND_MG720.pdf

Robinson, C. L. (1999). Observations on cognition and insanity [Electronic version]. American Journal of Forensic Psychology, 17(4) 63-75.

Saxon, A. J., Davis, T. M., Sloan, K. L., McKnight, K. M., McFall, M. E. and Kivlahan, D. R. (2001). Trauma, symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder, and associated problems among incarcerated veterans [Electronic version]. Psychiatric Services, 52(7), 959-964.

Young, D. W. (2003). Varieties of thought disorder in the criminal context. Washington State Bar Association. Retrieved October 29, 2008, from http://www.wsba.org.media/publications/barnews/2003/mar-03-young.htm

United States Department of Justice. (2004). Veterans in state and federal prison system, 2004. Retrieved November 20, 2008, from http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/vsfp04.pdf

Veterans for America (n. d.). Talking points: The consequences of churning and weekend warriors to frontline soldiers. Retrieved October 29, 2008, from http://www.veteransforamerica.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/talking_points.pdf

Veterans for Common Sense and Veterans United For Truth, Inc v. Veterans Administration, C-07-3758-SC, 2007 U.S. Dist.

October 1, 2008

Combat Veterans and Institutions: A Systems Analysis

Returning Combat Veterans (RCV), have a difficult time reintegrating back into society and life within their family. They deal with a myriad of symptoms combining to hinder the RCV from coping in the civilian world, while having constructive relationships with their family and friends. The lack of psychological education and training while in the military poorly prepares the soldier for the horrors of war and the negative effects on mental functioning. Further compounding the problems for the RCV upon their return they encounter limited services and a Veterans Administration (VA) system more in tune with economics and regulations then providing best outcomes. The scope of this paper explains these concerns as they relate to the competition between veterans seeking help and a system geared toward a macro structural functionalist model that concentrates on peripheral wide applications. A deeper apprehension and awareness has to come forward for our veterans to get the help they need.

The problem between bureaucracies, the combat veteran and their family receiving help lies with the systems application of dynamic systems theory to address problems that require a more interactive ideology such as the ecological systems approach. The main criticism of systems theory treats the person as a machine or something that can be “fixed” lies central to the VA’s approach (Robbins, S.P., Pranab, C., Canda, E. R., pps. 28-47). The models and programs stemming from government to redress RCV issues fail to take into account the magnitude of their problems that extend beyond the medical model and psychological paradigm. The attempt by the VA to apply a blanket policy of treatment on all veterans who face problems such as the affects of psychological trauma in combat has failed.

The military way of life provides strong attachments through a communal approach to every aspect of interactions between soldiers and their families, whether through a support network for the spouse of a soldier to help one another, or to the training of our troops. Developing and enveloping the individual perspectives while opening them to a cohesive togetherness usually not felt before enlisting in the armed services. Now add in a military conflagration and this level of interpersonal commitment and associations become welded to each other’s identity (Lee, 2008f). By educating the soldiers on how personal bonds can be broken by combat and the importance of redeveloping connections with significant others could lessen the mental shock upon returning home.

While many physical features of the RCV may have changed, the deleterious effects of Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) leave nothing the same and completely alter the landscape of the mind. “Taking another's life in the name of freedom, patriotism and because of your job description profoundly changes the person.” (Lee, 2008a, para. 2) Their whole existence has been transformed by the experience of killing; the morality of war trumps the niceties of society and lends the RCV to a reflexive reactionary response to the environment. The enormous adaptive impositions caused by combat disposes of coping and social skills, personal values, cognitive development, definitions of boundaries, stress management, and appropriate responses to environmental stimuli. All of these issues combine to challenge the RCV’s reintegration back into society, “…the environment, which is physical and social…can either support or fail to support the adaptive achievements of autonomy, competence, identity formation, and relatedness to others” (Robbins, 35).

Value identifications have importance to the combat veteran with PTSD, as their value system has been compromised by the acts of killing and war. The values and morality of war greatly conflict with society’s norms and principles. When the combat veteran brings this survival perspective home with them it alienates them from everyone who has not experienced combat, war and or trauma. Combat changes and alters the soldier’s sense of importance and trivializes niceties that lubricate society’s interactions and exchanges. Without identifying what values the veteran or soldier deems important they will continue to operate from the old combat values set and wonder why people [fail to] understand them (Lee 2008c, para. 3).

Soldiers in combat develop a powerful attachment to one another; the strength of this symbiotic bonding overshadows all others, even family. First of all the degree of familiarity and closeness that extreme survival situations such as combat, brings people together to a height one has never experienced before. People have an instinctual need to feel a belonging such as in a herd where they feel safe. This “herdness” has supplanted all other attachments while people they once knew intimately have become foreign and strange. The family, friends and soldier feel this estrangement and all involved become unfamiliar and uncomfortable. Family and friends cannot understand what the RCV has been through, so the soldier or veteran seeks other survivors who do (Lee, 2008e).

The militaristic concentration on rituals of drilling and killing so that one becomes a more efficient “terminator” through automatic reflexive responses to survival, leads the veteran prone to using violent behavior in any given situation where boundaries have been crossed. The open system dynamics of “normal” interaction has become highly dysfunctional for the RCV who has lost their “goodness of fit” within their home environment. The breakdown of a unifying suprasystem interferes with the holistic dimensions of the veteran, increasing the separation and antagonizing the loss of identity that humans claim from associations within their communities. Without an understanding of boundary maintenance the RCV often develops a feeling of being attacked at home and in their community due to their inability to adapt to the fluidity of boundaries inherent with socialization.

Ehrenreich (2003) seeks to advance an understanding of “social traumas” where, …[i]n the context of physical devastation, massive social displacement, and ongoing violence, the hierarchy of need reasserts itself: concrete needs for, health care, housing, and jobs, the need for social reconstruction and reintegration, and the necessity of social reconciliation may dwarf individual emotional needs.

The identification and reinforcement of values, emotion identification, and anger management techniques along with stress management training would enable soldiers to realize better coping strategies when coming out of the combat zone. Further, interpersonal communication and social skills education along with boundaries identification would foster closer relationships with significant others (Lee, 2008d). Further on the topic of values and principles, these systems have a connection to feelings and emotions or the lack thereof with one who dissociates as most RCVs and complex-PTSD sufferers do. Emotions and feelings are the arbiters of values, principles, and morality; the ethical dilemmas that keep most people in check can get bypassed with a combat veteran’s lack of affect. A normal reaction with a non-traumatized brain would trigger an emotive response cascading into consideration of appropriate responses. The higher level processes of cognitive interaction delve into a consideration of choices and consequences, whereas the traumatized brain operates from the lower base of primitive survival systems and defensive mechanisms forgoing the thought of repercussions (Lee, 2008c).

The subsystem of a combat squad having experienced several fire fights develops a sense of oneness with each other; they have become an independent ecosystem; one organism through the forging process of fight or flight. Due to the nature of killing and survival their emotionality has become severed from their environment and channeled into the solidarity that soldiering brings. If one of them gets wounded or killed they all feel it through their connection of unity and common goal of survival (Lee 2008d). Bonding through blood and battle takes the soldier to a new level of raw humanism forged through survival and fight or flight defensive mechanisms. The psychology of killing alters the terrain of the mind disabling the rational machinery and enabling the ancient reflexive responsive unconscious (Lee, 2008f).

The focus on killing without contemplating consequences severs the RCVs ritual of connection to community, family, and wholeness resulting in deviant adaptations. Their formative connections have remained back in the field of combat and killing, where they left part of themselves with their buddies who have yet to come home while carrying the guilt of leaving them behind. They feel that egoistic “warrior archetype” connection with the military and the battle buddy who had their back in the combat zone. In this mind frame when the veteran comes home; they become lost in a world that no longer makes sense to them due to adaptive process of bypassing the five senses and emotional attachment to considerations of interactions. The hard wiring of the combat veterans mind acts as if their life depends on the ritualism of defensive hyper-vigilance and keeps the RCV stuck in a malposition (Lee, 2008b).

When combat takes away the soldier who has became the centerpiece of an intimate community it breaks down. Whether he has been buried or she has become a prisoner of her own mind; war fractures the body, mind, spirit and the community that once knew cohesion (Lee, 2008f). Some soldiers will long for that interconnectedness left in the field when they came home and reenlist or volunteer for another tour. Many soldiers find that their PTSD symptoms dissipate or vanish while back in the theater of combat, they have reentered the realm of survival, fight or flight and oneness with soldiering (Lee, 2008e).

The troops who do make it out of the theater of combat have been changed in body and mind. They have lost substantial parts of their mind, soul and community. Psychological trauma devastates the battle buddy, spouse, and children while splintering everything that once was the bedrock of the American Soldier (Lee, 2008f). In addition the military needs to teach mental health sensitivity training and PTSD awareness as a standard, in basic training and continuing throughout their careers thus giving mental injuries of war validity. Training in these areas would give our soldiers an extra set of tools and weapons in fighting the psychological effects of combat and war. Educating them before hand of what they may face upon going home would prepare them if they develop PTSD. Otherwise they will have gained the insights and ability to recognize when their fellow soldier suffers from PTSD (Lee, 2008d).

References

Ehrenreich, J. H., (2003). Understanding PTSD: forgetting trauma. Journal of Social Issues, 3 (1) 15-28.

Lee, S. (2008a, July 13). Forgive me. PTSD, a soldier’s perspective. Retrieved from http://ptsdasoldiersperspective.blogspot.com/2008/07/forgive-me.html

Lee, S (2008b, July 20). My first email response. PTSD, a soldier’s perspective. Retrieved from http://ptsdasoldiersperspective.blogspot.com/2008/07/my-first-e-mail-response.html

Lee, S. (2008c, August 22). Thoughts feelings and behavior. PTSD, a soldier’s perspective. Retrieved from http://ptsdasoldiersperspective.blogspot.com/2008/08/thoughts-eelings-and-actions.html

Lee, S. (2008d, September 5). Fully train our soldiers for the rigors of war. PTSD, a soldier’s perspective. Retrieved from http://ptsdasoldiersperspective.blogspot.com/2008/09/fully-train-our-soldiers-for-rigors-of.html

Lee, S. (2008e, September 6). Soldiers in combat develop powerful attachments to one another. PTSD, a soldier’s perspective. Retrieved from http://ptsdasoldiersperspective.blogspot.com/2008/09/soldiers-in-combat-develop-powerful.html

Lee, S. (2008f, September 14). Lower recruitment standards contributing to military suicide rates. PTSD, a soldier's perspective. Retrieved from http://ptsdasoldiersperspective.blogspot.com/2008/09/lower-recruitment-standards.html

Robbins, S. P., Pranab, C. and Canda, E. R. (2006). Contemporary human behavior theory: a critical perspective for social work. Boston: Pearson Education.