For anyone who's every wondered about whether troops' increased exposure to combat trauma results in greater chances of their developing PTSD, the answer is a definite "yes," according to a study released in the February issue of the Psychiatric Times, linked here. The article from which excellent graphic (left) is taken is entitled, "Posttraumatic Stress Disorder in Veterans," and it makes the point that cumulative exposure to combat trauma predicts PTSD in a linear fashion. Less exposure (fewer firefights) -- lower rates of PTSD; higher exposure (greater number of firefights) -- higher rates of PTSD. According to the article, it really is that simple.
The article's authors cite an earlier published report of OIF (Iraq) and OEF (Afghanistan) servicemembers, and found high rates of exposure to both "traumatic situations and combat." "According to the study, about 33% of soldiers in Afghanistan and 71% to 86% of soldiers in Iraq experienced a firefight. PTSD rates ranged from 6.2% for veterans of Afghanistan's OEF to more than 12% for OIF veterans. The risk of PTSD was found to increase linearly with the number of firefights (see graphic, above). Having been wounded, a condition previously found to be predictive of PTSD, was also significantly associated with PTSD. As is commonly found in patients with PTSD, rates of depression and alcohol use also increased following combat exposure."
When we think of tragic stories of what we can only assume to be PTSD-fueled incidents in the news -- the recent suicide of Marine SSgt. Travis Twiggs, the arrest of Marine LCpl. Eric Acevedo for murder, and others like them -- we should really stop to pause and wonder, how many times have these servicemembers been deployed, for how long have they been in combat, and to what have they been exposed (meaning, how many firefights)? Twiggs, it turns out, had done four(!) tours of Iraq, and one of Afghanistan (earlier reports mentioned four total, but they were wrong); Acevedo had done three tours of Iraq by the time he was 22, including one that involved a horrific battle, where 10 members of his battalion died on a single day, and several others were wounded. To not take the effects of their cumulative exposure -- what they saw, did, were witness to -- is just unconscionable. We have a very love-hate relationship with the glory of serving in this country: we glorify our military heroes for their astounding feats of endurance (Brad Kasal, the Marlboro Marine, etc.), but we also equally unreasonably vilify them when they crack under the all-too-obvious strain. It seems like what we need most of all is just the sober estimation: the more servicemembers have gone through -- and suffered -- the more we can expect them to have problems later on, with developing PTSD. As noted Australian Vietnam War researcher Hedley Peach said in a slightly different context, what we're really looking at here is not something unusual -- it's the generic effect of combat.
