I'm a Vet and I Hate Guns...

[MTT TL]

Most serious combat vets, including special forces are generally silent about their experiences.
All military jobs are important to the mission, most of us are satisfied with that, some need to show some valor in order to be legitimized. But, some support troops do experience combat, so mos isn’t always a teller of wartime experiences.

I don't know about all that. There are a gazillion books on Amazon written by SF, SEAL and other combat vets about their experiences. Some people are going to talk and some are not.

In Iraq there were about 42K CIB's (Infantry/ SF) awarded. There were about 66K CABs and CMB's (Medics, SF Medics and everyone else in the Army) awarded. This is out of a total of 1.5M deployed. This works out to less than 8% of the total ever deployed with the majority being awarded to non infantry and SF MOSs. I will say the averages in infantry and SF are going to much higher than just about every other MOS, but most people who saw combat at least once were not infantry or SF. The SF and Infantry soldiers who did see combat likely saw it more than once, the rest were less likely. There were also about 36K Purple Hearts awarded in Iraq. If you know a vet that actually served in Iraq it is only 8% likely he or she saw combat. The numbers are a little higher for Afghanistan but not much.

What is fascinating about these numbers is that 11-20% of vets claim PTSD in a year. This can be more than double the number who actually saw combat. A combat badge is practically automatic with a PH so those numbers don't add anything. So yeah, there are likely tons of fakers out there.

I don't really talk much about my combat experiences with non-vets. There really isn't much point. Kind of the same way electrical engineers don't discuss what they do with people outside the field. You might think it would be more relatable but it isn't.

This woman isn't claiming combat though, just cool guy status.

 

[davidsog]

This woman isn't claiming combat though, just cool guy status.

Exactly. Which is so common it is sickening. It seems everybody claims to be "with special ops" today.

What is fascinating about these numbers is that 11-20% of vets claim PTSD in a year.

You get asked a million times if you feel you have it on the way out of service.

PTSD has a stigma about it because of the sensitivity of the public.

War is traumatizing. PTSD is the abnormal ability to process trauma. Often times the normal steps our brain takes to process trauma are confused with PTSD.

Of that 11-20% only a few actually have PTSD. However that claim starts the steps required to actually diagnosis real PTSD.

I don't really talk much about my combat experiences with non-vets. There really isn't much point. Kind of the same way electrical engineers don't discuss what they do with people outside the field. You might think it would be more relatable but it isn't.

Yep. Again, there is ton of ignorance out there and in today's world of the easily offended you simply do not how people will take an honest answer. Better to smile and say nothing in many cases.

I tend to talk about what I can it if asked. For one thing there is way too much ignorance in the civilian world about what soldiers go through and I have found my civilian co-workers (there is life after retirement) to be very curious and want to be supportive of servicemembers. It is a great opportunity too to pass on some of knowledge of the giants I had the privilege to stand beside and know. Especially the ones who did give up all of their tomorrows so that "Miss Special Ops can have the opportunity to bask in their glory".

Look at the Hollywood films coming out. I about threw up when I saw the "Hurt Locker". The whole premise was the guy was addicted to adrenaline. Stupid movie and the fact it won so many awards was telling IMHO.

There is a tendency for many to not want to believe normal people could take personal responsibility for the protection of our society volunteering to exist in such abnormal circumstances as war.

The "ordinary men in extraordinary circumstances" narrative seems to disrupt their own self image so they must turn us into something more palatable to their own psyche.

If you are not in the military the list of prohibited claims is limited.

Ok. That explains why the unit did not put him in jail but just processed him out of the service.

The SF and Infantry soldiers who did see combat likely saw it more than once, the rest were less likely. There were also about 36K Purple Hearts awarded in Iraq. If you know a vet that actually served in Iraq it is only 8% likely he or she saw combat. The numbers are a little higher for Afghanistan but not much.

There is a lot of folks riding on the backs of a few.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

What is fascinating about these numbers is that 11-20% of vets claim PTSD in a year. This can be more than double the number who actually saw combat.

I was involved in a case where the person did not even finish their follow-on training. This person never left the United States and never served in a non-training unit before they were discharged for medical reasons (a common physical injury not related to any kind of attack or trauma). This person ended up receiving disability, inlcuding a certain percentage for PTSD. The circumstances of how I came across them suggest a high probability the PTSD and medical disability were both unjustified.

The sad thing is people like that play a huge role in creating the stigma around PTSD and seeking help that stops people who actually need help from reaching out and seeking it. And there are some sad stories on that end of the table as well.

The "ordinary men in extraordinary circumstances" narrative seems to disrupt their own self image so they must turn us into something more palatable to their own psyche.

To bring this full circle, I personally believe that describes a lot of anti-Second Amendment feeling as well. Some people are so terrified at the thought of having to be personally responsible for their own security, they’d do anything to relieve themselves of those feelings of inadequacy. Which of course means, you can’t demonstrate any personal responsibility either or that just reflects poorly on them and continues their feelings of inadequacy.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

This woman isn't claiming combat though, just cool guy status.

I disagree. But this is where we get into the "She didn't exactly lie, but she didn't exactly tell the truth, either." Here's what she wrote:

Following graduation from West Point, I commanded two Special Operations companies – small forces structured to complete the most physically and politically challenging missions. Multiple times a year, year after year, we underwent recertification on the weapons that were most central to our mission. Going to the range was treated with the utmost of gravity and military discipline. There was no joking around on the range. Every single round of ammunition was accounted for every single time.

She didn't outright state that she saw combat, but by saying that she commanded "small forces structured to complete the most physically and politically challenging missions" she certainly bent over backwards to convey that impression to those of her readers who haven't served in the Army and won't know that in the 1990s there were no female officers commanding real "tip of the spear" type companies. I respectfully submit that she IS claiming combat, but in a way that doesn't come right out and say it, so she can't be accused of actually lying.

But, as we know, there are lies of commission, and there are lies of omission.

 

[davidsog]

Multiple times a year, year after year, we underwent recertification on the weapons that were most central to our mission.

Ok. She fired ~ 98 rounds of 5.56mm per year qualifying every six months to stay current. If she qualified on her M9 then you can add ~100 rounds of 9mm. Maybe 100 rounds of 7.62mm from a M240 if she did familiarization every year.

Balance that with the fact an ODA's ammunition allocation is equal to a Regular Army Infantry Battalions ammunition allocation for the year.

Some get more ammo a quarter than that an Infantry Battalion does for the entire year.

Going to the range was treated with the utmost of gravity and military discipline.

Yes because your average support trooper is not very well trained and that level of gravity and discipline must be reinforced heavily during their limited exposure to weaponry for safety. Magazine loading is tightly controlled, no loaded magazines are allowed off the range, and every action is commanded while on the firing line. Negligent discharges are the result if the range is not tightly controlled.

Other units treat weapon safety with the same seriousness but as a continuous process such that ranges appear much more relaxed because that same safety is culture. Having ammunition and loaded weapons is part of being at work and not some special occasion.

 

[davidsog]

To bring this full circle, I personally believe that describes a lot of anti-Second Amendment feeling as well. Some people are so terrified at the thought of having to be personally responsible for their own security, they’d do anything to relieve themselves of those feelings of inadequacy. Which of course means, you can’t demonstrate any personal responsibility either or that just reflects poorly on them and continues their feelings of inadequacy.

I agree.

 

[MTT TL]

Ok. She fired ~ 98 rounds of 5.56mm per year qualifying every six months to stay current. If she qualified on her M9 then you can add ~100 rounds of 9mm. Maybe 100 rounds of 7.62mm from a M240 if she did familiarization every year.

Just a guess but I'd be willing to bet she often shot double that just to qualify.

 

[davidsog]

Just a guess but I'd be willing to bet she often shot double that just to qualify.

Very good odds you are right.

 

[Evan Thomas]

OK, we're back to snark and personal attacks, and this is getting circular in any case; after five-plus pages, I doubt that there's anything new to add, so... closed.