A Dishonest Article about US Army Suicides

A Dishonest Article about US Army Suicides
The Daily Bell
by Staff Report
Thursday, December 13, 2012

Congress can help prevent military suicides ... As troop commanders coming up through the Army ranks, we learned that taking care of our soldiers was a primary responsibility of military leadership. We knew that the troops were our credentials, and we tried to create an environment where they could be the best they could possibly be. This meant getting to know them and their families - whether they lived on or off post.

This was part of our responsibility for those under our command. It was - and still is - Leadership 101. When we lost a service member, for whatever reason, it was a heart-wrenching experience. But it was worse in the case of those who took their own lives. Suicides have been a challenge for the U.S. military for a long time - and the problem is getting more severe. Suicides began rising in the middle of the 2000s, leveled off briefly in 2010 and 2011 and resumed climbing again this year, reaching a record high ... Reversing this epidemic is among the military's highest priorities. In that regard, one of the things we learned during our careers is that stress, guns and alcohol are a dangerous mixture. In the wrong proportions, they tend to blow out the lamp of the mind and cause irrational acts. Commanders and noncommissioned officers need the tools to prevent this mixture from turning lethal. – Washington Post

Dominant Social Theme: Take guns away from servicemen so they can't kill themselves.

Free-Market Analysis: The reason this article is dishonest is because of what it leaves out. The authors, both retired army generals, suggest that a big help to officers when it comes to mental health is the ability to find out if soldiers have guns at home – and then to address the issue of how to secure such weapons.

This assumes that officers are constantly taking the pulse of those under their command and reacting empathetically to "perceived stress." The idea is thus propounded that officers are in some sense father figures, psychologists, relatives, friends, etc. They are to be seen as a trusted source.

And yet these same officers must order their troops into battle where they may be killed. There is a contradiction here. It is the reason officers never fraternize immoderately with soldiers under their command.

War is a bloody business and officers have the authority to send men to their deaths. Officers are not friends of their underlings. They are not father figures.

The argument of these two generals also treats the weapon as the culprit. The idea is that if the weapon is "secured," the suicide may not take place. This may be true ... once. But what about next time? Can't the individual unsecure the weapon as easily as it has been secured?

The article seems to treat suicide as some sort of vague complex that descends like a miasma for no reason. But this is not so. There are very specific reasons for suicides of servicemen, from what we can tell. You won't find any of them in this article. Here's more