Jump to content
  • Announcements

    • olyclimber

      WELCOME TO THE CASCADECLIMBERS.COM FORUMS   02/03/18

      We have upgraded to new forum software as of late last year, and it makes everything here so much better!  It is now much easier to do pretty much anything, including write Trip Reports, sell gear, schedule climbing related events, and more. There is a new reputation system that allows for positive contributors to be recognized,  it is possible to tag content with identifiers, drag and drop in images, and it is much easier to embed multimedia content from Youtube, Vimeo, and more.  In all, the site is much more user friendly, bug free, and feature rich!   Whether you're a new user or a grizzled cascadeclimbers.com veteran, we think you'll love the new forums. Enjoy!
Sign in to follow this  
Braydon

Blackwater Question

Recommended Posts

I think Scott's job position in the past has generally been such that there is no "post" yet to the traumatic distress.

 

 

To put it in perspective. The 1:3 ratio was devised by the same people who thought that those watching 9/11 on the tv in LA had PTSD. PTSD is real and TBI's are a very real cause. Over diagnosing will just lead to those suffering looking like malingerers.

 

So what is the Ratio according to the V.A. ?????

 

How the fuck should I know. I am not retired.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think Scott's job position in the past has generally been such that there is no "post" yet to the traumatic distress.

 

 

To put it in perspective. The 1:3 ratio was devised by the same people who thought that those watching 9/11 on the tv in LA had PTSD. PTSD is real and TBI's are a very real cause. Over diagnosing will just lead to those suffering looking like malingerers.

 

So what is the Ratio according to the V.A. ?????

 

 

HELLO, V.A. worker are you still fudging, ah, i mean crunching the ratio numbers??

 

Don't work for the VA and am in a different time zone and would rather diddle the misses than talk to you kiddo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats what i thought a bunch of B.S.,you can go to (V.A EMAIL ON P.T.S.D.)and read all about the B.S.,on March 20,08 a in house email was sent out to all V.A. staff ordering them to stop diagnoing vets with P.T.S.D. instead to call it AJUSTMENT DISORDER due to the money it would cost to treat 650,000 vets over the next 5 years? Its called V.A.gate,and heads will roll!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thats what i thought a bunch of B.S.,you can go to (V.A EMAIL ON P.T.S.D.)and read all about the B.S.,on March 20,08 a in house email was sent out to all V.A. staff ordering them to stop diagnoing vets with P.T.S.D. instead to call it AJUSTMENT DISORDER due to the money it would cost to treat 650,000 vets over the next 5 years? Its called V.A.gate,and heads will roll!!

 

So why the fuck did you ask me? I have fuck-all to do with the VA bud. I have personally diagnosed two victims with TBI induced PTSD. What the fuck do you want from me?

 

By the way. A lot of people are overdiagnosed with PTSD. There is really no clinical signs and symptoms that are universal so it tends to get overdiagnosed and people with other underlying conditions are denied treatment for what they really have. Also, the overdiagnosing of the condition has caused many to look at PTSD as a malingerers' disease. Why don't you cool it and listen to what the fuck you are saying.

 

The other thing that is pissing a lot of guys off is that they are trying to give out purple hearts for diagnosed PTSD. KInda frustrating for a guy who had his legs blown off to look over and ask a guy what he got his purple heart for and have him tell him that he has PTSD.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a different generation. Over 7000 US Marines lost their lives in a week on Iwo Jima, and I don't remember reading about too many guys bitching about PTSD.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Word.

 

OTOH, I know personally of a guy in 3ID that committed suicide after taking a blast to the head. There are physiologic reasons for a small percent of those afflicted. The blasts common in this conflict can cause a unique kind of ailment similar to BFT to the head. It is another generation though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PTSD was around after WWII. It was called "shell-shocked". They just didn't treat mental issues in those days. Didn't know how.

Still trying to figure it out. It might be easy to fake and may be a Mailgerer's condition in some or many cases.

But it also takes a harsh toll on really good people and their families. Sweaping it under the carpet is no different than letting amputees lie untreated in hospitals. It can be just as life changing and life threatening. Hard to swallow if you are an amputee for sure. But amputees handle their new issues differently just like other people handle being Shell-shocked differently.

 

I do disagree with giving out purple hearts for ptsd. But there also needs to be an honorable way to acknowledge the sacrifice that was made.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A new cost in warfare in the ME, is the fact the medivacs are more readily available. That, and today's mash units are better equipped and more effective. A lot of folks in really bad shape who, in previous conflicts, wouldn't have made it back home are now and so the size and costs of the casualty stream from the war in Iraq is much higher than worst case scenarios expected - not that the administration was going to do anything for the VA regardless.

 

For an entirely elective war, and one in planning several years in advance, the administration did nothing whatsoever to ramp up the resources our soldiers needed once engaged and did everything in their power to slash at the resources they needed on their return. Hard to imagine an administration with a more generic and cavalierly disposable view of our men and women in uniform.

 

As far as Obama being the new Carter, you clearly don't know much about Chicago or it's politics...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Joseph, what comparison can you make to the current situation to the 40's war against global fascism? Are people back home being rationed? Are people standing in line to sign up? No, there are dwindling numbers of people in our 'great' nation who are willing to stand up and get into the thin line, so concessions had to be made.

 

If the comparison you have in mind requires casting our 'war' in cultural as opposed to political terms (i.e. fascism then vs. Islamic fascism/caliphate now), then I don't think it is a valid one. With regard to the sacrifice required of the average citizen - that was entirely by design. Americans 'got' Afganistan in the wake of 9/11; Iraq was a longstanding neocon wetdream which the administration knew would never fly if the average citizen's life were impacted in any significant way.

 

Ditto Reagan's 'spending war' with the Russians. Both were supported by serious voodoo economics on the surface and manipulations of the credit markets behind the scenes. Our current crisis has both to thank. It started with Reagan and Bush Sr. and was used by again this administration to provide financial cover for the Iraq war in such a way it guaranteed the current finincial disaster. The suggestion I floated here, and elsewhere, in the past for engaging our citizenry is that the President be authorized to deploy 20k troops and support personnel (no contractors allowed) to any two non-contiguous conflict zones for six months. If they want one more body or one more day the following has to happen:

 

- President must formally declare war and have it approved by Congress with a 2/3s majority of both Houses.

- The day that happens dividends cease, interest rates and wholesale prices freeze.

- A 15% nation war VAT goes into effect

- A no-exemption draft starts immediately for everyone ages 18-35 (it doesn't matter what they do, just that society is [uniformly] disrupted)

 

And those wartime provisions stay in place until the President declares the war at an end and the Congress passes a resolution to that effect by a 2/3s majority of both Houses. Set presidential war powers up that way and we would enter into very few wars and those we did would be over damn fast.

 

And if we were going to attack Iraq we should have done so with three times the force levels, cleaned up our mess and restored infrastructure services and oil production within two years, and left within three telling them we'd prefer to not see a Shiite repeat of Saddam. As it was, we went in with the explicit objective of moving on to Iran and tended to the reconstruction of Iraq with a 'good faith effort' which made the carpetbaggers of the Civil War Reconstruction look like good samaritans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If the comparison you have in mind requires casting our 'war' in cultural as opposed to political terms (i.e. fascism then vs. Islamic fascism/caliphate now), then I don't think it is a valid one.

 

 

Interesting sentence, I am sure is not intended to be taken verbatim.

 

Before the splintering into various sects, in the Muslim world the Caliph spoke for the Caliphate which contained the ummah, and in the Christian world the Pope spoke for the Christians.

 

Would you put the Christians and fascism together? or should you? After all fascism was a European beast, born in Christian lands... Was Mussolini's brown shirts or Hitler's nazi party practicing Christian fascism, as perhaps the Taliban may have practiced Islamic fascism in your terminology? Is the latter easier sprinkled in your discourse because of your assumption that you are preaching to a Christian audience?

 

Does papal authority exist over the Christians any more than a caliphate exists at all? The last caliph was kicked out of Istanbul on a ship provided by his imperialist sponsors, and the caliphate was officially buried in the pages of history in 1924.

 

Name calling is easy... and it detracts from more sensible content that you may be trying to convey.

 

Erden.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Erden,

 

With regard to - ("fascism then vs. Islamic fascism/caliphate now") - I do mean it verbatim. The former term was from Serenity's question and the latter from the undercurrents of the Neocons and far-right's ceasely drumbeat for war in the ME - neither are mine. My point is that attempts (in many cases successful) to cast the 'war' in cultural terms as a 'clash of civilizations' are an exercise in political hyperbole and christian-right fearmongering rather than a credible strategic threat grounded in reality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having experanice with privet millitery COs or PMCs (but not spelling), Obama will not have to much say over wheather they will be used or not. Also PMCs saleries are based on the contrac. Other conrties also have the right to hire blackwater or whoever they want prety much. PMCs have been hire by many people besides goverment especully in Iraq. Alot are privet companies and since the millitery will not give them protection it is up to them to hire. One reason Blackwater gets so much bad rap is because they are so big, bad stuff is bound to happen. Also Other PMCs might sub-contract blackwater for jobs. The PMC running the show might be called Joes Army For Sale but the people doing the work are blackwater ops.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Erden,

 

With regard to - ("fascism then vs. Islamic fascism/caliphate now") - I do mean it verbatim. The former term was from Serenity's question and the latter from the undercurrents of the Neocons and far-right's ceasely drumbeat for war in the ME - neither are mine. My point is that attempts (in many cases successful) to cast the 'war' in cultural terms as a 'clash of civilizations' are an exercise in political hyperbole and christian-right fearmongering rather than a credible strategic threat grounded in reality.

 

Thanks for replying JosephH. I had to go back to reread your previous sentence in context. We certainly do agree in your last response above.

 

I am hopeful for a more cerebral approach to the world affairs with the new administration under Obama. He will have his plate full from day one... Untold amounts of damage has been done to the world opinion of USA under the Bush-Neocon administration.

 

Erden.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A few points.

 

Bug - Regarding the issues surrounding WW2 veterans, and the concept of shell shock. You're not telling me anything I don't already know. My point is that "the greatest generation' survived handily without being over diagnosed as 'shell shocked'. Their combat experiences far overshadowed the modern soldiers in most cases. Most returned to lead productive. and efficient lives. They coped with their experiences. Likewise with WW1, Civil War vets, et-cetera.

 

In order for PTSD to be diagnosed, there has to be a feeling of great fear bordering on helplessness or witnessing a horror of some kind.

 

PTSD requires several elements in order to be diagnosed properly.

 

A. Traumatic Incident: Actual death or perceived death of yourself or someone in close conjunction. Some warriors are constantly moving towards the sound or the actual event of fighting. Given the right circumstances this is inevitable.

 

B. Must respond with intense fear, hopelessness, or horror. This is known professionally as 'Condition Black". Also known as the "sheep effect". If you are trained properly, have confidence in your men, your team, yourself, and react properly there is no PTSD because there is no "Condition Black". This is sometimes referred to as "The Wolf" effect. Herein, you have to understand the concept of stress inoculation. Read up on Charles Kelly (machine gun Kelly).

 

C. Effort to avoid any association with the event. Disassociation.

 

D. Irritiability, difficulty sleeping, etc

 

*************************

 

Joseph- I care little or nothing about politics in Chicago or any major American city for that matter. I'll give President Elect Obama FULL benefit of the doubt, and I certainly hope he does a great job. I don't do partisan politics. I want a good government that satisfies the needs of the larger interest. So far all I see is a constant sway back and forth, back and forth, back and forth. It's getting old.

 

I do not however, condone or accept far left liberalism any more than some of you accept nonconservative doctrine. Let's just hope he does a great job, and we all walk away happy.

 

Credible strategic threats have to be dumbed down so the layman can understand them in a 60 seconds (or less) T.V. blurb. Whether you are a Christian right wing nutjob or a Jihadist car bomber, you're probably cut from the same mold.

 

The Afghan government has never declared religious war on the United States. Why? Because the US was invited to Afghanistan. I did not introduce the term caliphate into the conversation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the comparison you have in mind requires casting our 'war' in cultural as opposed to political terms (i.e. fascism then vs. Islamic fascism/caliphate now), then I don't think it is a valid one. With regard to the sacrifice required of the average citizen - that was entirely by design. Americans 'got' Afganistan in the wake of 9/11; Iraq was a longstanding neocon wetdream which the administration knew would never fly if the average citizen's life were impacted in any significant way.

 

And if we were going to attack Iraq we should have done so with three times the force levels, cleaned up our mess and restored infrastructure services and oil production within two years, and left within three telling them we'd prefer to not see a Shiite repeat of Saddam. As it was, we went in with the explicit objective of moving on to Iran and tended to the reconstruction of Iraq with a 'good faith effort' which made the carpetbaggers of the Civil War Reconstruction look like good samaritans.

 

I'm certainly not casting it in cultural terms. I never have, and I think you have misinterpreted what I was trying to point out. I have always stood by the proposition that the current war was from the start, and has been, a strategic move to buffer Saudi Arabia from Iran. Moreover, the two front concept has always been by design an effort to pincer Iran between 2 forward air bases.

 

I will certainly not argue that the planning phase of the operation was poorly concepted, and there was civilian bullying of military organizations that were more afraid (at the time) of rocking the boat, then standing up for what was right. Only the retired generals (Zinny -et al) were able to make their point without being censured.

 

Just take a look at what General Westmoreland did to active duty Colonel David Hackworth when he called the bullshit flag on Vietnam. The man almost went to jail for telling the American public some basic truths. And Hackworth was a TRUE warrior.

 

My arguments here dating as far back as 2003 were never neo-con cheerleading, they were simply "Oh fuck, we're knee deep in this shit now, let's get the job done". As always this was the perspective of someone who puts their money where their mouth is. What I know about this place is because I'm here. It might not the viewpoint of someone sitting back with copious amounts of time to laser in on one aspect, but I could certainly tell you about shit you'll never hear about. Oh, but I never will. Get it? I know you know what I am saying. You know I respect you, and I like what you have to say. Flip side to every coin though.

 

It took Winston Churchill about 3 years to figure out the best commander to deal with the issue of Erwin Rommel and the Afrika Korps. I wonder if he would have had a bunch of naysayers and swamp donkeys riding his ass from the second 8th Army hit the ground if anything would have been accomplished there? it cost a hella of a lot more Britsh and Crown lives to deal with that see-saw situation then it has cost us in Iraq. Yeah-yeah I know, why were we even there to begin with, and we have argued this ad-naseum. We're there now, and I think President Elect Obama is going to have some serious intel briefings that are going to alter some of his campaign promises. We'll wait and see on that one.

 

My prediction is forward air bases, heavily guarded, with at least several battalions of forward deployed combat troops there as a QRF(Quick Reaction Force) able to move anywhere within Iraq in minutes to protect any serious threat against US bases. A low signature FID (Foreign Internal Defense) package, and the largest US embassy in the world. Somewhere in the neighborhood of 25-50K US troops for quite a while. We're still in Korea, we're still in Germany.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wasn't misinterpreting you so much asking for clarification as the way you phrased your question to me it was hard to tell which you were suggesting.

 

I would say that W is no Winston and where Winston was simply looking for a general who had what it took to deal with Rommel, W and company were explicitely shopping for senior command officers who were ready to relinquish their responisbilities and allow the military to be manipulated in support of a very specific political agenda - it has very much been of repeat of Vietnam in that respect.

 

As far as Obama's agenda goes - the difference between McCain's plan and Obama's can be measured more in weeks than months. Republicans were on track with the current security agreement to bug out at the earliest possible date despite McCain's rhetoric to the contrary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most of the time I am trying to post under some unusual circumstances, and I am often not able to find time to make clear concise points. It is a bit frustrating. I hadn't really intended to even get into this conversation at all, as it is taking up too much of my time I don't really have to offer.

 

W is not Churchill, no doubt.

 

Best to you Joe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We're there now, and I think President Elect Obama is going to have some serious intel briefings that are going to alter some of his campaign promises. We'll wait and see on that one.

 

My prediction is forward air bases, heavily guarded, with at least several battalions of forward deployed combat troops there as a QRF(Quick Reaction Force) able to move anywhere within Iraq in minutes to protect any serious threat against US bases. A low signature FID (Foreign Internal Defense) package, and the largest US embassy in the world. Somewhere in the neighborhood of 25-50K US troops for quite a while. We're still in Korea, we're still in Germany.

 

Exactly:

 

Obama already has backed off the "get out of Iraq" pledge during his campaign. His selection of chief of staff confirms a continuation of that. We are and have been spending sh*tloads of $ on those permanent bases already.

 

Link

 

Will Obama walk away from that investment and change US foreign policy on his own?? Doubtful for many reasons. It will be interesting to see how, or even if, we get the Iraqis onboard with this idea of a long term US presence there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A few points.

 

Most returned to lead productive. and efficient lives. They coped with their experiences. Likewise with WW1, Civil War vets, et-cetera.

 

Not to diss you here.

If you have research on who was effected and how they were diagnosed and treated or not treated I would frankly be surprised.

A friend of mine returned from Vietnam, Ranger 101st, and never fully re-entered society. I worked with him in the woods where he was fine. When we went into a city, I had to be very careful about where I took him. I will spare you the stories.

My point is that, I started looking into finding help for this guy and met several people in a Vietnam Vet organization who were trying to get funding for this type of malady.

They had done a lot of research themselves back through WWII and found very little documentation of diagnosis, or treatment. Primarily, they were given downers and sent home.

There was also some research that was kind of ad hoc in academic research about the effects of WWII veterans on 50's and 60's society. There was a lot of violence in families of veterans. And a much higher rate of divorce which was a much bigger deal back then.

So be careful saying "they coped with their experiences". You might ask the wives, the children, and grandchildren how that all played out.

Cheers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We're there now, and I think President Elect Obama is going to have some serious intel briefings that are going to alter some of his campaign promises. We'll wait and see on that one.

 

My prediction is forward air bases, heavily guarded, with at least several battalions of forward deployed combat troops there as a QRF(Quick Reaction Force) able to move anywhere within Iraq in minutes to protect any serious threat against US bases. A low signature FID (Foreign Internal Defense) package, and the largest US embassy in the world. Somewhere in the neighborhood of 25-50K US troops for quite a while. We're still in Korea, we're still in Germany.

 

That's a huge and probably wrong assumption on your part.

 

Exactly:

 

Obama already has backed off the "get out of Iraq" pledge during his campaign. His selection of chief of staff confirms a continuation of that. We are and have been spending sh*tloads of $ on those permanent bases already.

 

Link

 

Will Obama walk away from that investment and change US foreign policy on his own?? Doubtful for many reasons. It will be interesting to see how, or even if, we get the Iraqis onboard with this idea of a long term US presence there.

 

Thats a huge and probably wrong assumption on your part. The chief of staff does not enact foreign policy. People are reading way too much into this appointment; suddenly there are predictions about how every aspect of Obama's presidency will go based on the selection of this one man. Pretty ridiculous.

 

Emanuel may have been chosen for his organizational and administrative skills far more than for his political philosophy, which, after, doesn't have to coincide with the President's at all, since the C.O.S. does not decide policy, he simply helps implement it. Who knows? Certainly no one here, that's for damn sure.

 

In any case, the C.O.S. isn't usually a heavy hitter like the AG, the Secretaries, or Supreme Court judges. Relax.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

×