The Broken Soldier

I will always place the mission first.

I will never accept defeat.

I will never quit.

I will never leave a fallen comrade.

The core of the Soldier’s Creed.  Pretty words.  Seriously.  Regardless of one’s metaphysical commitments to rules/ethics/morality, whether they are created to aspire to conform our behaviors to right actions, or if they’re a codified set of statements meant to glorify those actions already accepted in a given culture, thereby glorifying the culture itself, I think most rational people can see value in such things.  If I were training people for war, I’d want something like this governing their actions.  In itself, on its surface and even below it, there’s nothing wrong with these principles.  I’d say in our culture, we could all stand to be a bit more selfless.  But making war isn’t the only thing the Army does.  Herein lies the rub.  The same rub one finds when one applies rules too broadly.  If a hammer is the only tool on your tool belt, you’ll treat everything like a nail.

Those in power to make decisions not directly related to making war, though I’ve heard some argue that every action in this context ultimately relates to making war, are guided by their understanding of these principles.  Which is fine so long as they have the right understanding, and these principles governing Army conduct aren’t in conflict with principles governing other actions.  Such as those of professionals, like doctors and lawyers, etc.  If this collision must occur, then there must also be a method of resolving this conflict.  One a bit better reasoned out then the current method, which is to simply defer to the first principle, often with tragic and unnecessary results.

The Army’s website has a page devoted to the Warrior Ethos, and includes on it stories of soldiers said to embody each principle statement.  These stories tend to be war related, implying Army leadership has, at least on some level, an understanding of the limitations of these principles.  Though their actions don’t always comport.  Case in point:

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5788103.html

This young man, an Army recruiter, and his new bride are dead by their own hands.  Pistols to be precise.  Dead, in my opinion, by the same approach that’s crippled me and crippled, killed, or otherwise harmed many others.  Specifically I’m referring to ‘placing the mission first.’

The mission, in this case, was having this man back to work in order to have as many recruiters working to replenish a generally strained military, Army mostly as it is doing the majority of the heavy lifting in Afghanistan and Iraq and wherever else our fearless leaders lead us from the comfort of their Washington estates.  This in spite of his obvious suicidal ideations, the products of co-morbid major clinical depression and PTSD, and numerous threats and past attempts to kill himself.  This man’s life was valued less than his job.

Similarly, my story and those I’ve shared on this site, relate to this ethical confusion.  Mission-centered rather than person- or patient- or client-centered.  Denying care to save on costs, driving down disability ratings justified in ways most civilian professionals would find laughable if not for the deep anger they feel, sending medically unfit personnel to the front, and ignoring clear cries for help to keep this man at his post.  Our government and Army leadership will always place the mission first.  Though they are very rarely personally affected by their principled decisions and actions.  The questions are, how long do they believe we’ll tolerate this, and don’t they realize that long-term this approach is more costly?  Not just in terms of treasure, but in terms of losing our souls, individually and nationally.

My manner of resolving this is simple: Dismantle military professional classes.  Legislation and rule-making probably won’t work.  Those in power have a tendency to play fast and loose with the rules, knowing there’s little chance they’ll be busted for it.  These professionals, either purposefully or by ignoring the importance of an informed client, tend not to share relevant information.  Their subordinates won’t risk reprisal, and their superiors have an interest in keeping things as they are.  These combined with military mores of not complaining or criticizing, even in instances in which both are warranted, and there’s no real chance for positive change.  No, it’s time for a more radical solution.  This stone kills many birds.  It reduces the conflict of interest, allows for patients or clients to tell their providers where to go when they sense mistakes are being made, and holds individuals in these positions to the same standards as everyone else.

Addendum

The officers appointed over this soldier used the same bullshit tactic those appointed over me have used.  “We aren’t doctors, and we don’t question the correctness of their opinions” is the gist of it.  One doesn’t have to be a doctor to understand certain things.  Sometimes those not pinned down by a particular method tend to think more clearly and objectively.  They base their opinions on results rather than what is expected given a certain approach.  I’ve been to many a doctorate granting ceremony.  I promise you, God doesn’t descend on a cloud girded and praised by choirs of angels to hand the keys to the Kingdom and the universe to doc grads.  An MD or a DO or a PhD or a PsyD or a JD or whatever doesn’t, contrary to popular opinion, make one infallible.  Even in her/his own field of expertise.  It doesn’t mean they’re more intelligent than you.  It doesn’t mean they understand the specifics of your situation better than you and those around you do.  This horseshit, accompanied by what I’m betting is a well-rehearsed lament, is just another cog in this dysfunctional and immoral machine.  A cog designed to give the appearance that those appointed over us, while responsible by vocation, aren’t responsible for what happens and doesn’t happen to us.