Combat stress crackdown

[unhappycamper]

Combat stress crackdown
By Gregg Zoroya - USA Today
Posted : Wednesday Oct 3, 2007 7:52:30 EDT

Marine commanders would be required to intervene in cases in which combat-hardened Marines with clean records have gotten into trouble after suffering combat stress, under a proposed order.

The directive, which has not yet been signed by Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Conway, would require medical officers to screen for combat stress or traumatic brain injury all Marines who engage in uncharacteristic misconduct after returning from combat.

The misconduct could include drug use, unauthorized absences or disrespectful conduct and could result in a dismissal from service and the denial of Department of Veterans Affairs services.

“Post-deployment misconduct, especially in a Marine who previously served honorably, must be considered a possible indicator of an undiagnosed stress injury or a mild traumatic brain injury that, if confirmed, deserves immediate and comprehensive treatment,” the order said.

The order is under review and has no release date, said Navy Capt. William Nash, who coordinates the Marines’ combat-stress program.

At least one-third of 1,019 combat-veteran Marines who received less-than-honorable discharges for misconduct showed evidence of mental health problems, according to Marine Corps research Nash disclosed in June.


Rest of article at: http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2007/10/gns_marinestress_071003/

[babylonsister]

1. So would this be a 'pass' for Marines who act dishonorably under

the guise of stress-related? Or an excuse to excuse their actions?

[unhappycamper]

2. I'm not sure 'sister.

We know PTSD is a time bomb in people's heads waiting to go off. I'm hopeful that the services are getting serious about PTSD.

[happyslug]

3. Or a way to remove Marines earlier then permitted under present regulations

I can see a Commander giving over 10% of his command to this disorder. 10% is a "magic" number for most organizations, if you lose more than 10% of your people, the organization will fail to operate (Or operate at much lower level of performance). If 10% of the Marines are "Unfit" under this Regulations, the whole unit may be ready for combat AND ON GROUNDS THE COMMANDER OF THAT UNIT HAS NO CONTROL OVER (and this can not be held accountable for). Is this a back door attempt to force the issue of over-use of Marines and Soldiers in Iraq? Could be used as such, if the Commanders and the Doctors work together.

[NYVet]

4. What??

I think that the term you are looking for is "If 10% of a unit is "unfit" under this regulation, it is combat ineffective" and not able to be deployed.


However, I do not see a commander anywhere doing something like this.

[happyslug]

5. Studies going back to the Revolution (and before) shows 10% lost dangerous

Basically any unit that loses 10% of it personnel FOR ANY REASON, becomes noticeably less effective. During WWII the US adopted a policy of replacement on the line i.e. if someone was wounded or killed, he was replaces by someone coming directly from the states (This was also done in Korea and Vietnam). German units, which did NOT replace personnel but let units grow smaller, kept reporting that they US unit they were fighting at the end of the war was NOT as effective as the US unit they had fought earlier. When I first read this I dismissed it as German bragging. I then review the Replacement on the line AND EVEN US COMMANDERS WERE COMMENTING THAT THE UNITS THEY WERE COMMANDING IN MAY 1945 WAS NOT AS EFFECTIVE AS THEY HAD BEEN IN JUNE 1944. The number of men were the same, the training of each person was superior, the equipment was as good if not better, but the units as a whole were inferior.

The reason for this decline is that when people work together, they learn to compensate for each others strengths and weaknesses. When they have NOT worked together they can not. A good comparison can be between the Super Bowl Teams and the Pro-bowl Teams. The pro-bowl term are made up of the best players in the NFL. The Super-bowl teams have many of the best players BUT NOT ALL OF THEM AND MOST YEARS NOT EVEN THE MAJORITY OF THE BEST PLAYERS. Which team is better? The answer is simple, to have an "fair" pro-bowl the rule have to be changed drastically, for the players only have had two weeks to train come together as a team. Thus the Pro-bowl teams are inferior (and will lose) to the less talented Super blow team for the simple reason the Super bowl team is a TEAM, the pro-bowl team is just a collection of players. The same goes for Troops. As they train together they become a team. They learn to work together, compensating for each others weaknesses AND counting on each other's strengths. As you lose 10% of any unit this team work collapses, not to weakness of the players, but the fact the players have NOT learned to work as a team. It takes time to get people to work as a team, something the US Army did not have after June 1944 so the Army left the units deteriorate but kept the numbers up and the pressure on the much weaker Germans. Thus by May 1945 US Army units had badly deteriorated, but the Army survived for the Germans were more afraid of the Russians then the Americans (and one of the Reason Eisenhower refused to do anything about the Russian Red Army in eastern Europe was do to the poor Condition of the US Army from May 1945 onward).

This problem occurred again in Korea and Vietnam. In Vietnam it took almost four years for the full affect ot kick in, but by 1972 the US Army was done. The Army needed to pull out of Vietnam and rebuild and could NOT do so while sending troops to Vietnam. Thus the Main reason Kissinger agreed to give up on Vietnam was because the Army could no longer fight effectively. The one year rotations were ingrained by then but because they were Individuals not unit time periods they was no chance to rest Any unit. The US was defeated by its own refusal to transfer units from and to Vietnam.

After Vietnam the Army and the Marines adopted polices of transferring UNITS not INDIVIDUALS for long term combat missions. Thus, unlike Vietnam, you have units pulling into and pulling out of Iraq. The units are staying in Iraq no up to 18 months (It use to be only one year). During that time period you have people who are suffering from long term psychological problems. If that numbers starts to get over 10% (and have to be replaced) then the unit fall into the same trap as in the later years of Vietnam, a lot of people NOT trained to work together (Trained and equipped, but NOT trained to to to war with the people they are going to war with).

My point is simple, "could this be a way for a Marine Commander to get his unit declared unfit for combat"? I think it can be used as such and SHOULD BE USE AS SUCH IF A MARINE UNIT DOES HAVE TO MANY PEOPLE SUFFERING FROM LONG TERM PSYCHO LOCAL PROBLEMS.