Assuming you've read the article let me paraphrase the conclusion you are supposed to draw, 'a few evil conservative nutjob psychiatrist backed by the evil AEI are trying to claim that Vietnam era vets who are filing new or continuing disability claims because of PTSD are fakers, and by extension the masses of shell shocked young men coming home broken, mangled and traumatized (both physically and mentally) are going to be discouraged from seeking help by evil minions of the Boooosh regime just to SAVE MONEY'.
We'll the conclusion I'll draw is that being declared permanently disabled is an incentive for some to continue to demonstrate symptoms of trauma. Separating fakers from sufferers will always be difficult. Trying to do so is prudent and necessary. The 'left' is poised to create another generation of troops who they hope will be permanent 'victims' of an unneeded and unwarranted war (the left's characterization, obviously not mine). There is a symbiosis between psychiatrist who will have more clients the more people they diagnose and the people who may decide that their very real traumatic experiences are a good enough reason to exaggerate and perpetuate symptoms that happen to also provide a potential revenue stream.
The photo accompanying the article is another form of spin. Their caption,Army Reserve Sgt. Jared Myers is shown with his mother, Judy Smith, who admitted him to the Dwight D. Eisenhower Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Leavenworth, Kan., where he spent three weeks being diagnosed and treated for post-traumatic stress disorder.
My translation, See his haunted eyes, see his grieving mother (who had to force him into treatment cause he was too crazed to admit himself), there will never be any more joy for either, they will forever be wondering when he'll go RAMBO and mow down a mall full of folks with the automatic weapons he continues to be fascinated with. And how dare those evil VA doctors unleash him back in the world with only three weeks of treatment, haven't they seen all the movies that prove what a ticking timebomb we have here?
Think I'm joking or exaggerating, well let's not forget classic films like The Hunted which features a crazed Bosnian?!? Conflict vet terrorizing the Northwest, even a show as stupid as Las Vegas had a traumatized vet subplot (Episode 24, Season 2 premiere, happens to air the week of 9/11, coincidence?, have never watched the series I assume the character has gone back to being eye candy by now), this will be the staple of Hollywood films and TV for at least the next twenty years. Here's a nice bit of myth exploding from The San Diego Union-Tribune published this Veteran's Day.
UPDATE: I emailed, Dr. Helen and she was good enough to post her thoughts (much more measured, much less screedy) on the article and PSTD in general.
3 comments:
I think you degrade the experience of the soldier in that photo when you imply that here's merely a prop for the article. Nobody said he's some lunatic about to be released on the world; nothing of the kind is implied in the article.
Separately, what do you think of the fact that many veterans do not seek treatment for the condition fearing the stigma of mental illness? Knowing that, couldn't one just as easily claim that the problem is not over-represented, but under-represented?
Lastly, do you not think that there is incentive among consertavies and Republicans to try and downplay this disorder, in order to save money? Or do you think that out of the goodness of their hearts, our politicians will provide for these soldiers...like they provided them with adequate supplies for three years in Iraq?
Just as it's all too easy to look at something and blame Bush, it's all too easy to look at the same problem and dismiss it in an effort to absolve Bush. You should know that.
I stand by my conviction simply cause there is an entire meta-narrative about the troops suggested by the choices the Post made in making this a front page article and featuring that particular photo.
The pose used suggests the narrative I spun. I exaggerated for effect, but I don't think I exaggerated all that much. The line 'is shown with his mother, Judy Smith, who admitted him to the VA Center' speaks volumes to me. She's not quoted elsewhere, in the article, nor is he, so that photo is chosen strictly for its utility as a prop and for the conclusions it's expected to lead the reader towards.
By pointing out that this reservists picture might be part of a particular political spin doesn't degrade him, or diminish my awe at his grace and bravery in enlisting. Nor does suffering from the effects of combat mark him as someone less brave than those who haven't sought treatment, and in many ways it takes more bravery to admit to the problem , get treatment, and be splashed across the front page of a major newspaper. But that doesn't change anything. It's still a ploy, and it still reeks of quagmire-ism, and Vietnam-ism.
I'm guessing the critic I'm responding to didn't read the article about all the unfounded myths about the Vietnam era Vets that I linked to later in my screed.
My sarcasm was strictly aimed at the Washington Post, not the soldier, if that wasn't clear I apologize.
Is it possible for an article to be both right in substance (I.e. Bush is in fact Satan) (I Kid) (Mostly), and be overly spun? I ask because to paraphrase the little shit from 6th Sense, you see BDS people...
FWIW, that photo is egregious. It begs the question of why Bush hates Frodo (not to mock the soldier in question, but if they could have found a girl who looks like Shirley Temple, I suspect that photo would have run instead.)
Post a Comment