There is a shamefully broad gap between the lip service that we Americans give soldiers—or “heroes,” as we love to call them—and our actual treatment of them.
Case in point: In 2009 the U.S. Army, with great fanfare, initiated a $125 million program for improving the mental health of its troops and their families. The so-called Comprehensive Soldier and Family Fitness program was designed with the help of prominent members of the American Psychological Association, notably former APA president Martin Seligman.
The Defense Department has touted Soldier Fitness as a great success, but it cannot offer any solid data to back up that assertion, according to a new study by the Institute of Medicine, a branch of the prestigious National Academy of Sciences. The study, commissioned by the Defense Department, examined not only Soldier Fitness but also many other counseling programs instituted by the U.S. armed forces and found little or no evidence of benefits.
“While DOD has adopted these numerous resilience and prevention programs, gaps exist in the evidence supporting their effectiveness,” states an Institute of Medicine press release. “For example, based on internal research data that show only very small effects, DOD concluded that Comprehensive Soldier and Family Fitness–a broadly implemented program intended to foster resilience and enhance performance–is effective, despite external evaluations that dispute that conclusion.”
Some psychologists, notably Roy Eidelson, a member of Coalition for an Ethical Psychology, have criticized the American Psychological Association’s participation in Soldier Fitness—and more broadly in U.S. military activities. “Helping people who have already been harmed by trauma is essential,” Eidelson and two colleagues wrote in 2011. “But should we be involved in helping an institution prepare to place more people in harm’s way without careful and ongoing questioning and review of the rationale for doing so?”
Good question. If we really cared about our troops, wouldn’t we keep them out of wars in the first place? According to the Institute of Medicine report, between 2000 and 2011 “936,283 current or former service members have been diagnosed with a psychological condition; such diagnoses increased by about 62 percent among active-duty service members during approximately the same time frame.” Disorders include post-traumatic stress disorder, depression, anxiety and substance abuse.
But of course that’s far from the only harm suffered by U.S. troops. According to a report by Harvard’s Shorenstein Center, more than 6,500 American soldiers have been killed and more than 50,000 wounded since 9/11. More than 1,700 soldiers have lost one or more limbs, and more than 250,000 have suffered a brain injury. Post-9/11 U.S. wars cost as much as $6 trillion, money that could have been spent improving health care, education and transportation in this country. And lets not forget the hundreds of thousands of Afghans and Iraqis who have lost their lives under U.S. occupation.
The psychological distress of U.S. veterans is just one symptom of a terrible disease afflicting our culture, the disease of militarism. The goal of psychologists—and all of us–should be to eradicate this scourge, not merely to treat its symptoms.
John Horgan directs the Center for Science Writings, which is part of the College of Arts & Letters. This column is adapted from one originally published on his ScientificAmerican.com blog, “Cross-check.”
Be First to Comment