July 31, 2002

9:17 AM

Special Operations Soldiers return from Afghanistan and kill wives.With all the talk about going to war with Iraq, is it time to take a serious look at what the effects of modern combat have on the soldiers who we send to fight? In the past six weeks four soldiers stationed at Fort Bragg (all recently returned from Afghanistan) killed their wives by shootings (2), strangulation (1) or stabbing (50 times) and burning the body (note - not a special opps soldier for this one). Are these killings just the tip of the iceberg for a future trend, and what can the US military do to make sure that the training they give to soldiers not turn them into domestic terrorists upon their return?
posted by DragonBoy (34 comments total)

They need to clarify: kill and torture only when the government says it is okay...not on your own time!
posted by troybob at 9:19 AM on July 31, 2002

Clarification #2: brutally murder THEIR women
posted by zekinskia at 9:22 AM on July 31, 2002

It's not a one way street, either.
posted by hotdoughnutsnow at 9:23 AM on July 31, 2002

Wow, now that's what I call a war of the sexes.
posted by hob at 9:27 AM on July 31, 2002

Not surprising there isn't enough information in the article to determine the probability of this being a random occurance. No sense mucking up a perfectly good sensational story with carefully researched journalism.
posted by plaino at 9:35 AM on July 31, 2002

Killing is bad, um-k.

But what is the same percentage for others ? Is this .04% of the returning soldiers? Is this 10%? How does this compare to other professions? Other branches of the military? Other countries with afghan involvement? While the focus has been on the U.S. military are they just being singled out?
posted by mkelley at 9:35 AM on July 31, 2002

Reading stories like these reminded me of Gulf War Syndrome. Who knows what chemicals our military is exposed to, either intentionally or unintentionally, and what effects said chemicals have?
posted by whatnot at 9:47 AM on July 31, 2002

Why would you assume that this phenomenon, if it is indeed anything more than a random occurrance, is a result of modern combat? I'd be surprised if it hasn't been a problem throughout history.
posted by MrBaliHai at 9:47 AM on July 31, 2002

Only 3 of the soldiers had been to Afghanistan. Additionally, two of the situations were murder-suicides.

My sympathies to the families.
posted by onhazier at 9:50 AM on July 31, 2002

I'm poking around the web, looking for real numbers on crime rates after serving in a war and haven't found anything substantial.

But this is interesting:
[several sources] and countless other individual and anecdotal observations all confirm Marshall's fundamental conclusion that human beings are not, by nature, killers. Indeed, from a psychological perspective, the history of warfare can be viewed as a series of successively more effective tactical and mechanical mechanisms to enable or force combatants to overcome their resistance to killing other human beings, even when defined as the enemy.
posted by whatnot at 9:59 AM on July 31, 2002

Wow, now that's what I call a war of the sexes.
posted by hob at 9:27 AM PST on July 31

Wow, now that's what I call a ludicrously offensive comment. For Christ's sake, these are four women who were brutally murdered. That's funny to you?
posted by Sinner at 10:01 AM on July 31, 2002

Anyone have stats or stories on WWII vets returing home and committing violent acts? I'm pretty well-read on even the most obscure events of both WWI and WWII, and I've never read about soldiers returning and committing murder- suicides (and undoubtedly those soldiers saw *much* more wholesale slaughter occurring on a daily basis over a period of years), but that obviously doesn't mean it never happened.

Audie Murphy was, however, among the first soldiers to identify what we now call post-traumatic stress disorder. I've worked with several WWII vets that described returning home and diving under their beds every time they heard a noise resembling an air-raid siren. I believe even Audie (the most heroic underdog of the war) used to sleep with a pistol under his pillow after returning from France.
posted by dhoyt at 10:05 AM on July 31, 2002

4 women and 1 man.

in a place where *supposedly* there haven't been any deaths from domestic violence for 2 years.

i think it has been established in the past that war fucks up people and marriages. for example, the divorce rate for vietnam vets is between 80-90%.
posted by witchstone at 10:12 AM on July 31, 2002

mkelley,

Much of the information that you requested can be found in this report from 1996 (I know, old data).

Military Domestic Abuse:
Army and Marine Corps: 24 confirmed reports of abuse per 1,000 spouses.
Navy: 15 confirmed reports per 1,000 spouses
Air Force: 14 confirmed reports per 1,000 spouses

Additionally, up to 74 percent of the victims said they feared consequences from reporting abuse, according to the study.

This page reports that in 1992, 7 percent of American women (3.9 million) who were married or living with someone as a couple were physically abused.
posted by DragonBoy at 10:20 AM on July 31, 2002

Sinner: Toughen up. You're supposed to be insensitive and callous on the net.

Okay, that's a little tongue in cheek, but it's essentially true. If you wanted to, you could spend all day, every day finding out who died where. People get really damn numb to it reading this stuff day in and day out. After the millionth death you don't even bat an eye.

The other factor is the fact that time moves so much faster on the web. The amount of time that has to pass before joking is appropriate has been severly cut down. WTC jokes were being tossed about before the dust cleared.

I don't know... I'm just rambling. But I do know that if you're going to confront everyone who makes a joke about death on the net, you're going to waste a lot of time.
posted by ODiV at 10:32 AM on July 31, 2002

give to soldiers not turn them into domestic terrorists upon their return

Hyperbole alert! Please don't pull the GOP tactic of calling everything bad "terrorism".
posted by owillis at 11:05 AM on July 31, 2002

Sinner: Wow, now that's what I call a ludicrously offensive comment. For Christ's sake, these are four women who were brutally murdered. That's funny to you?

Um, yeah. Did you notice the comment directly preceding mine? Did you click on the link? If you had, you'd have noted that it was a report of a wife on the same base having murdered her soldier husband. That makes casualties on both "sides" of the issue, wives vs soldiers... and that makes it a war, not an attrocity. Hey?

Come on, at least try to follow along.
posted by hob at 11:08 AM on July 31, 2002

For those talking about statistics... well, 5 people in two months for a pretty small population like that is a lot.

Of course, one thing that happens is that 'ideas' get planted in peoples heads, just like suicide. When one kid commits suicide at a school or something, a lot more will. so maybe that has something to do with it.
posted by delmoi at 11:13 AM on July 31, 2002

From the same article I mentioned before:

Every warrior society has a "purification ritual" to help the returning warrior deal with his "blood guilt" and to reassure him that what he did in combat was "good." In primitive tribes, this generally involves ritual bathing, ritual separation (which serves as a cooling-off and "group therapy" session), and a ceremony embracing the veteran back into the tribe. Modern Western rituals traditionally involve long separation while marching or sailing home, parades, monuments, and unconditional acceptance from society and family.

so those who serve in unpopular conflicts don't get the "unconditional acceptance" they need upon returning home and are more likely to continue aggression? I wonder how much a soldier's own feelings about what he or she is being forced to do come into play?
posted by whatnot at 11:24 AM on July 31, 2002

owillis,
"Hyperbole alert! Please don't pull the GOP tactic of calling everything bad 'terrorism'."

The tactic was employed intentionally. Glad to see someone was paying attention to that. :)
posted by DragonBoy at 11:44 AM on July 31, 2002

OdIV: Sinner: Toughen up. You're supposed to be insensitive and callous on the net.

Right. And you know enough about me to make any such determination.

ODiV:Okay, that's a little tongue in cheek, but it's essentially true. If you wanted to, you could spend all day, every day finding out who died where. People get really damn numb to it reading this stuff day in and day out. After the millionth death you don't even bat an eye.

A still-better perspective: the entire web is one contiguous entity, so there should be no standards anywhere. The calculus is: "metafilter = rotten.com = goats* = stile," right? There should be - and I believe there is - an unspoken agreement as to what constitutes acceptable behavior and speech on this site, and I feel pretty confident hob's post fell outside those lines. On the other hand, you don't see my crying out for censorship or banning from mathowie. People should know better.
posted by Sinner at 11:46 AM on July 31, 2002

hob: Um, yeah. Did you notice the comment directly preceding mine? Did you click on the link?

On the one hand, no, so touche.

If you had, you'd have noted that it was a report of a wife on the same base having murdered her soldier husband. That makes casualties on both "sides" of the issue, wives vs soldiers... and that makes it a war, not an attrocity. Hey?

On the other - a saying of which I've grown quite fond - that sure as hell doesn't make it funny. It's a pretty depressing fucking story, and while the first post or two at least made an political statements in somewhat poor taste, yours was just plain insensitive. Disagree? Fine, your business, just as it's mine to call you out on it.

Come on, at least try to follow along.

I only wish I could compete on such a prestigious level of comedy. Please let me know when you offer your master class on "Puns and Fart Jokes."
posted by Sinner at 11:53 AM on July 31, 2002

Sinner: Please let me know when you offer your master class on "Puns and Fart Jokes."

I'll cop to having a taste for low-and-fast humor. I'll even admit that the joke I made was stupid, easy and cheap. But for christ's sake lighten up. If you think that there ought to be a more serious and dignified tone to this discussion then perhaps you ought to contribute serious and dignified posts, rather than filling the page with accusatory ramblings.
posted by hob at 12:11 PM on July 31, 2002

As a followup to whatnot's link to killology, Dave Grossman's On Killing is a great starting point for understanding the psychology of modern warfare.
posted by ahughey at 12:32 PM on July 31, 2002

Sinner: defensive much? I was trying to explain why I think things are the way things are. Chill out.

Hey, we joined on the same day!
posted by ODiV at 12:33 PM on July 31, 2002

These three lines count as"filling the page with accusatory ramblings?"

Wow, now that's what I call a war of the sexes.
posted by hob at 9:27 AM PST on July 31

Wow, now that's what I call a ludicrously offensive comment. For Christ's sake, these are four women who were brutally murdered. That's funny to you?

Or was it my response to you? In which case it's not so much accusatory as explanatory, and I at least am doing so largely after the conversation ended, as opposed to an instant derailment of the thread. No, I don't have anything "serious or dignified" to say on the topic, but I'd like to read the thoughts of those who do without having to trudge through pre-pubescent attempts at humor.

And so far as "lightening up," please don't cower behind the "you don't have to read it" defense. You don't have to write it either, and I can't know how offensive your words will be until I've already read them. Whereas you have the benefit of knowing in advance.

Further, don't try and shift the onus for your lack of decorum on to me as if I'm some fey little pantywaist. That's bullshit moral relativism, whereby nothing is ever inappropriate or wrong. "Stupid, easy and cheap" indeed.
posted by Sinner at 12:34 PM on July 31, 2002

ODiV: defensive much? I was trying to explain why I think things are the way things are. Chill out.

It's nothing personal, but I didn't like the way you phrased it, first of all, and second I fundamentally disagree with your premise. I've been using web/internet discussion groups of one stripe or another since 93 or so, and rarely have I confronted people for jokes of any sort. This was one of the few instances where I thought it warranted, given the sad nature of the event, and how recent it was. In retrospect, this should all probably be in MeTa, but it's not worth wasting pagespace by starting a whole new thread there.
posted by Sinner at 12:43 PM on July 31, 2002

Maybe the wives were cheating on them. In Houston this dental doctor lady ran over her cheating husband a week ago. Happens all the time.
posted by adnanbwp at 12:45 PM on July 31, 2002

what was the post about again?
posted by whatnot at 12:51 PM on July 31, 2002

Can't you guys just get a room?
posted by i_cola at 12:55 PM on July 31, 2002

I should probably assume I won't get any response to my original (attempted) conversation-spurner.
posted by dhoyt at 12:58 PM on July 31, 2002

The stresses of military life on marriages are well-known. When soldiers or sailors are deployed there are even greater stresses, in addition to the obvious worry for separated partners. Spouses with children must re-arrange their lives to act as a single parent. Isolation and loneliness are common. There's a notorious amount of adultery. It can't be easy under the best of circumstances.

I speak from sub-optimal family experience here.

Fort Bragg may not be a metropolis, but with 42,000 soldiers stationed there, combined with families probably adding up to 100,000, it is a small city. Four or five murders in six weeks is unusual but a) it's a period of dislocation as soldiers return, b) this is probably just a statistical cluster, rather than a trend.

As for being "forced", note that the entire United States armed forces are volunteer. To be in the special forces, one also must volunteer -- first for Airborne; second for Rangers; third for Special Forces. Many are called and few are chosen. These may be our most highly trained soldiers, perhaps the most highly trained in any army in history. It's almost impossible to advance without specialty skills and continuing graduate-level education. These men are not 19-year-old recruits; many are lifers, probably most are in their late 20s to early 30s. These will be men with established families, which puts them in different circumstances from most youths in the army. Their psychology, by this point, is much different as well. Special forces eschew rank identification and most military protocol (it can get one recognized, or targeted, in combat situations). They're individualists, and many are probably loners, prepared to work with only a small squadron of comrades, or even completely alone, in difficult circumstances for weeks or months at a time. They're sort of military otaku.
posted by dhartung at 1:43 PM on July 31, 2002

adnanbwp,

Hey, that happened literally blocks from my house. The tragic thing in the case of the dental doctor lady was that she had her 16 year-old daughter in the car as she repeatedly drove the car over her husband's head.
posted by DragonBoy at 1:44 PM on July 31, 2002

I cannot imagine the stress, desensitizing to violence, and general mind-f*&^ing that goes on in Special Operations teams deployed in a war. I'm frankly surprised that this sort of thing doesn't happen more often. When I watch something like "Band of Brothers," "Platoon," or "Saving Private Ryan," I'm always amazed that anyone who went to war could come back and live even a remotely normal life.

I would definitely say that the Defense Dept. needs to look at the therapy and re-entry options they are giving to their soldiers.
posted by aacheson at 4:29 PM on July 31, 2002