NYT article on "moral wounds"

[TiroFijo]

Very interesting, reading on this kind of PTSD... sobering and sad.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/13/magazine/veterans-ptsd-drone-warrior-wounds.html?WT.nav=top-news&action=click&clickSource=story-heading&hp&module=first-column-region&pgtype=Homepage&region=top-news

I remember hearing basically the same thing on drone attacks from a former Shin Bet director in the excellent documentary "The Gatekeepers".

[Peally]

They're still killing just like any fighter pilot. Still gotta make peace with the fact that it was the job and the guys on the other end needed it.

[98z28]

Jocko Podcats #124 with James "Mook" Mukoyama went into this a bit too. "Moral wounds" likely affects A LOT of first responders and medical personnel as well as soldiers. It's worth exploring if you've spent any time in uniform.

http://jockopodcast.com/2018/05/09/124-hardcore-recondo-general-james-mook-mukoyama-everyday-is-a-great-day-i-have-my-faith-my-family-and-live-in-the-finest-country-in-the-world/

[Stephanie B]

They're still killing just like any fighter pilot. Still gotta make peace with the fact that it was the job and the guys on the other end needed it.
No, they are not. Fighter pilots have some skin in the game, as there is a non-zero chance of being killed every mission. Even if the enemy doesn’t possess watch the way of anti-aircraft weapons, flying high performance airplanes is a hazardous occupation.

Driving drones is not. There is nothing involved in flying a drone that somebody who was wearing an evening dress and heels couldn’t do.

More to the point, the drone drivers spend hours watching the target, and did they get to watch the aftermath. They see the families come out and their reactions. On the other hand, a fighter pilot who is dropped her weapons, is now on her way back to her base (and a cold beer).

When there is a mistake, and there are mistakes, the drone driver sees what happens afterwards. The fighter pilot doesn’t.

[Peally]

No, they are not. Fighter pilots have some skin in the game, as there is a non-zero chance of being killed every mission. Even if the enemy doesn’t possess watch the way of anti-aircraft weapons, flying high performance airplanes is a hazardous occupation.

Driving drones is not. There is nothing involved in flying a drone that somebody who was wearing an evening dress and heels couldn’t do.

More to the point, the drone drivers spend hours watching the target, and did they get to watch the aftermath. They see the families come out and their reactions. On the other hand, a fighter pilot who is dropped her weapons, is now on her way back to her base (and a cold beer).

When there is a mistake, and there are mistakes, the drone driver sees what happens afterwards. The fighter pilot doesn’t.

Did I say they were experiencing the same occupational hazards? (nope). They're still killing. There's inherently little risk of death but you're still slapping a pickle button and dropping a bomb on a forehead.

[Stephanie B]

Did I say they were experiencing the same occupational hazards? (nope). They're still killing. There's inherently little risk of death but you're still slapping a pickle button and dropping a bomb on a forehead.

Yes, but they’re engaging in combat with all of the risk of playing a video game. (Except for being SWATed buy some clown.) And it’s not really “combat”. It’s something else.

[Trigger]

Meh. Typical for the media, they got most of the facts in the article skewed or wrong. The subject in the first part of the article works at a DGS, a distributed ground squadron. The DGS takes the intel output of the RPAs and does the analysis and looks for patterns. Various types of intel work and analysis. The RPA pilots and SOs at Creech produce the imagery and various products, but do not do the grunt work of all the analysis.

Folks in these professions need to learn how to compartmentalize their feelings and emotions, to focus on the job. Most do it well, some do not. Those career fields do suffer a higher than normal suicide rate, and other challenges. Their OpsTempo has been high for a long time, so burnout is common. But there are some steely-eyed killers in that bunch, and they are good at what they do.

Is their ass on the line when they fly? No. Will people get hurt or die if they screw up? Yep. There is still a very strong drive to be the best they can, and accomplish the mission the best they can within the ROE.

Of course, about seven years ago, the knuckle head JAG at Creech made a statement in AFTimes that Yes, technically the RPA crews are lawful combatants, and could be engaged off duty in Nevada under the laws of war. I about blew a gasket when I heard that. It created a lot of challenges for the Creech leadership. Those folks work pretty hard doing what they do, and Creech is not a great place to work. I do admire their professionalism.

I kinda hate the NYTimes, and liberal media attitude in general, that if you are current/former military, you are a PTSD case waiting to happen. What a bunch of crap. All of the folks I know, flew with and worked with deal with the stress of the mission just fine. One of the best tools for coping with the pressure was the bond of esprit de corps that we build within our teams. We support each other, it helps one keep perspective. Plus the reindeer games of squadron tradition are quite fun! Since the political correctness movement wants to do away with all that, it is a sworn enemy of mine. Telling folks what they do is important and worthwhile makes the sacrifices worthy. Political correctness and the PTSD industry would like to take all that away. So we do battle in our own small way to keep that effort at bay.

[TiroFijo]

JAG is right., if you kill somebody (or are in the team that performs that feat), by whatever means remote or not, then you are a "combatant", and that carries all the moral benefits and downsides.

Regarding "steely eyes", squared off tough guys, etc., did I mentioned that no other than the Shin Bet former directors practically mentioned the same emotional scars? This is no PTSD BS from softies.

[RoyGBiv]

And it’s not really “combat”. It’s something else.
I agree...

But I'm not going to give short shrift to the psychological impact that could come from killing humans, even from far away, even when they need killing. I don't see any need to rank the "deservedness" of those feelings among those who step up to do those various jobs.... Bomber pilot, helicopter, artillery, grunt, drone pilot, missile silo tech, COP, EMS, <other>.

[JRB]

The biggest problem is that 100% of the attention and narrative is wholly placed on the 'victims' of PTSD.

As a military, we should primarily be celebrating and focusing on the guys that had to figure out which severed limbs belonged to which of their buddies - but still came home and kept their head together and went on to live happy lives.

The addendum, sidebar, etc conversation should be the 'if you're having trouble keeping it together' options. Instead, it's 100% of the coverage of all of it.


I also emphatically detest the media's tendency to paint any post-deployment veteran as being some loose cannon that's a PTSD flashback away from murdering their whole families.

[Trigger]

JAG is right., if you kill somebody (or are in the team that performs that feat), by whatever means remote or not, then you are a "combatant", and that carries all the moral benefits and downsides.

Regarding "steely eyes", squared off tough guys, etc., did I mentioned that no other than the Shin Bet former directors practically mentioned the same emotional scars? This is no PTSD BS from softies.

The problem is that when troops are in the deployed combat zone, they are equipped, armed, and have ROE for engagement. None of that exists for the young airmen commuting from their apartment to 40 miles up the road to Creech. And since they are not allowed to be armed on base, nor bring/store legal CCW weapons on base, even unloaded in car trunks, it creates a bit of a problem. They are forced to be defenseless, then their status is highlighted in the news. Nice. Thanks, JAG.

[BehindBlueI's]

The problem is that when troops are in the deployed combat zone, they are equipped, armed, and have ROE for engagement. None of that exists for the young airmen commuting from their apartment to 40 miles up the road to Creech. And since they are not allowed to be armed on base, nor bring/store legal CCW weapons on base, even unloaded in car trunks, it creates a bit of a problem. They are forced to be defenseless, then their status is highlighted in the news. Nice. Thanks, JAG.

I suspect those who would do them harm are not legal combatants themselves who know or care about such trifles as combatant designations.