The Bush Legacy
Jan 12th, 2008 at 9:38 pm by Susie
This will last a very long time:
The New York Times found 121 cases in which veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan committed a killing in this country, or were charged with one, after their return from war. In many of those cases, combat trauma and the stress of deployment — along with alcohol abuse, family discord and other attendant problems — appear to have set the stage for a tragedy that was part destruction, part self-destruction.
Three-quarters of these veterans were still in the military at the time of the killing. More than half the killings involved guns, and the rest were stabbings, beatings, strangulations and bathtub drownings. Twenty-five offenders faced murder, manslaughter or homicide charges for fatal car crashes resulting from drunken, reckless or suicidal driving.
About a third of the victims were spouses, girlfriends, children or other relatives, among them 2-year-old Krisiauna Calaira Lewis, whose 20-year-old father slammed her against a wall when he was recuperating in Texas from a bombing near Falluja that blew off his foot and shook up his brain.
This is horrible, horrible reporting. The article never says anything about how many murders would be expected to be committed by an equivalent group that didn’t go to Iraq. The one analysis I’ve seen, quickly and roughly done, showed it to be quite likely that the murder rate among Iraq veterans is actually lower than for the general public in that age group. The NYT should be ashamed of themselves for devoting so much effort to make the reporting sensationalist, without proper context.
The Iraq war is doing enough damage to America without our needing to make things up.
Yeah, I saw that “analysis,” too. I’ll wait to see one from someone who doesn’t have a right-wing axe to grind, thanks.
This doesn’t purport to be a scientific study. It’s a story noting the rise of such incidents. Did you even bother to read the whole thing?
In the meantime, chew on this (unless regulation GOP talking points require you to insist there’s really no such thing as PTSD):
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/565407
By the way, one of my oldest friends is a shrink who runs a vet drop-in center. If anything, I’d say this story probably understates the problem.
Three years ago, I had an young Iraq war vet pull a gun on me in my own backyard, and his wife told me he’d often wake up screaming. I wonder how he’s doing now - they’d scheduled him to go back, and she was afraid he’d kill himself.
The comment from the Pentagon Lt. Col. is absolutely moronic.
Lt. Col. Melnyk said that the increase in these incidents might be explained by “an increase in awareness of military service by reporters since 9/11.”
So he’s saying because we’re more aware is why there are more incidents? What is he saying?
Does this guy tell his adolescent son that he doesn’t really have more acne than before, he’s just more aware of it?
“This doesn’t purport to be a scientific study. It’s a story noting the rise of such incidents. Did you even bother to read the whole thing?”
Yes, I read the whole thing. It’s making the point that Iraq is causing a bunch of murders in this country and then describes several of them in horrific detail, ignoring the fact that any sample of a million people of that age group would have a bunch of horrific murders. What if the article had also described a bunch of bloody, insane murders that had nothing to do with Iraq? That would destroy the whole point of the article, wouldn’t it? Yet that second set did actually happen; leaving them out of the report is a form of lying.
“By the way, one of my oldest friends is a shrink who runs a vet drop-in center. If anything, I’d say this story probably understates the problem. … Three years ago, I had an young Iraq war vet pull a gun on me in my own backyard,”
Look, I’m not saying that the problem isn’t real, I’m saying we have to tell the story the right way. Otherwise it’s pure sensationalism, and people would be right to discount it (and it’s sad that they generally wouldn’t). It’s the kind of reporting seen on the right wing and from local news stations: “Coming up! Your toothbrush may be harboring germs that will kill you!! Film at eleven!” We should be better than that.
What was the common thread in the stories? That the violence was completely out of character with their pre-war selves.
Now, how do you correct for that in a sample? You’d need people the same age and gender, same education, same income, same marital status, same military background except for Iraq service (good luck with THAT), same drug and alcohol use, and the crime would have to be unprovoked and directed disproportionately against family members - with no previous record of such violence.
No newspaper has the money for something like that, and it would take years. And it’s not their job, anyway. They’re pointing out a trend. It’s up to the scientists to pin down the specifics. Believe me, if I thought the Times was out of line, I’d be the first person to say so.
You say the story makes what we say look bad. I say, you’re missing something important. The actual facts have nothing whatsoever to do with whether we’ll be attacked as wrong - we’ll be attacked and ridiculed NO MATTER WHAT. Of course the right wing doesn’t want to own this story - it indicates we’re going to have decades of social problems as a result of the war, so they’ll do what they always do: Ignore the facts and attack the messenger.
“What was the common thread in the stories? That the violence was completely out of character with their pre-war selves.”
No, sorry, I’m sure most murderers are described that way by the neighbors: “he seemed like such a quiet guy.”
“Now, how do you correct for that in a sample? You’d need people the same age and gender, same education, same income, same marital status, same military background except for Iraq service (good luck with THAT),”
Easy. Just pick the set of people in the military in that age group in, say, 1998. They are LARGE samples, a million or more people in each. Things like gender, education, income level, marital status will just drop out. And, of course, the differential is service in Iraq.
“same drug and alcohol use,”
You don’t dare correct for those; they’re quite likely symptoms of the same problem.
“No newspaper has the money for something like that, and it would take years.”
Oh, pfui, they had NINE people working on this story. Look at the list of researchers at the bottom of the page. And it wouldn’t take years; the military and FBI gather, consolidate, and report this kind of data in great detail. Years ago I did population statistics work for a well-known sociologist named Jim Sakoda (also known for origami and paper airplanes). This kind of data was easily available even then.
“And it’s not their job, anyway.”
My point is that it’s EXACTLY their job.
I’m afraid I couldn’t follow your last paragraph. I guess all I can say is that sometimes the messenger deserves to be shot.
“so they’ll do what they always do: Ignore the facts and attack the messenger.”
Isn’t this response
a perfect example of what you’re talking about?
I mean, facts should be facts, regardless of what kind of axe the person delivering them has to grind.