jrtom: (Default)
So apparently I missed this story first time around: it appears that US veterans are committing suicide at about 2x the rate of the rest of the population:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/13/earlyshow/main3494261.shtml

to the point where there have been more suicides than combat fatalities--possibly several times more. It's been publicized again recently:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/05/06/cbsnews_investigates/main4076241.shtml

Now, as a scientist of sorts, I recognize that there are several unanswered questions:

(1) How has the US veteran suicide rate changed over time? (Stats prior to our invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan would be useful here, as a point of departure. Stats before and after the Gulf War, Viet Nam War, would also be handy.)
(2) How many of those veterans that are suiciding are doing so after having had a tour in Iraq or Afghanistan?
(3) How many are doing so shortly before being (re)sent to Iraq or Afghanistan?

A brief search hasn't turned up any studies, or data. If anyone has any (pointers to) such, I'd really like to see it.

However, as a political activist of sorts, even without answers to those questions...I'd really like to see one of the Democratic candidates bring up the fact that N times as many US service members have committed suicide since 2003 as have died in combat: that is, the true casualty rate appears to be considerably higher than the combat death stats suggest.

(This leaves out the injury rates here: part of the reason why there have been fewer deaths than in some previous conflicts is simply that medical technology is now capable of saving some of those that would have died. For an SFnal take on this, see http://www.bestsf.net/reviews/dozois5.html for a reference to the short story "The Million-Dollar Wound".

...and now I'm wondering how many US veteran _suicide attempts_ there have been, and how _that's_ changed...although I'd also bet that the 'success rate' of veteran suicides is considerably higher.)
jrtom: (Default)
Bush:

"I thought long and hard about what it is like to be a leader of a country that has been torn asunder by a tyrant...broke up families to stay in power..."

http://weblogs.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/blog/2007/09/out_of_iraq_bush_speaks_of_tro.html

*sardonic look*
jrtom: (Default)
There's been a lot of debate about the recent Congressional push to set a specific end date for our troops' involvement in Iraq. In particular, the Bush administration and supporters have been equating 'refusing to pass an "emergency" (emergency my ass, but that's another rant) spending bill without such an end date rider' with 'refusal to "support the troops"'.

If Congress refuses to allocate money for Bush to keep troops in Iraq, this does not mean that we leave them all there to die, or even give them less food or ammunition (unless, of course, Bush so orders it, at which point I would fervently hope that Congress would finally summon the spine to impeach his not-nearly-sorry-enough ass for treason). It means that we bring them home. No war funding? Stop war. Not a difficult concept.

Furthermore, insisting that the troops come home by a specific time is not second-guessing the generals. The generals' jobs are to decide the best ways to use military force to achieve the ends that are given to it by our government. They are not the ones who decide what those ends will be.

More simply: we're not proposing to tell the generals how to do their job. We are telling them that we're done with this job, and it's time to stop trying to do it.

Somehow, the Democratic leadership, and others who are publicly opposed to further operations in Iraq, are not getting these messages out, despite their utter simplicity. Instead they're allowing Bush and the hard-core war supporters to frame the debate their way, and making themselves look like they're anti-military in the bargain.

(The first point, at least, has recently been prominently made by Doonesbury (this past Sunday) but not (as far as I know) elsewhere, so I thought it was time to try to get it some more air time.)
jrtom: (Default)
...since most of them tend to devolve to "is not!" "is too!" as if that were really the most important point (as opposed, to, say, trying to decide what we should be doing about the situation).

However, these are a couple of thoughtful articles (by the same author) that are worth reading.

http://www.time.com/time/world/printout/0,8816,1548897,00.html

http://tonykaron.com/2005/08/03/why-iraq-is-not-vietnam/


On a related note, this article seems to suggest that the militias aren't going anywhere, mostly because there's a perception among many Iraqis that they're the only ones that can really provide any kind of order, or at least protection:

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/special_packages/iraq/15805850.htm

Profile

jrtom: (Default)
jrtom

May 2011

S M T W T F S
1234567
891011121314
1516 1718192021
22232425262728
29 3031    

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated 3 January 2026 16:30
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios