TOPICS
TOPICS
Top military doctors say six- to nine-month combat tours would reduce stress
The surgeon generals of the Army, Navy and Air Force told senators on Wednesday that the optimal tour in Afghanistan and Iraq to reduce combat stress should be six to nine months with 18 months at home, far shorter than the cut in tours from 15 to 12 months ordered by President Bush last week.
Army Surgeon General Lt. Gen. Eric Schoomaker emphasized that his was a medical assessment of the optimal length for combat tours and that "operational imperatives dictate [length of] deployments."
Vice Adm. Adam Robinson, the Navy's surgeon general, said less time at home between deployments has had a "devastating" effect on troops and their families since the United States commenced operations in Iraq five years ago.
While Air Force personnel in general average much shorter deployments -- about three months -- Lt. Gen. James Roudebush, the service's chief doctor, told the hearing that "my leadership pays close attention to rotation and dwell times...I agree that six months, plus or minus" is an optimal deployment length.
The views of the top military doctors on deployment periods and increased time at home dovetail with the opinions of senior military leaders and studies that have shown stress increases with the length of time in combat.
The Army's chief of staff, Gen. George W. Casey, told the Senate Armed Services Committee in February that "The cumulative effects of the last six-plus years of war have left our Army out of balance, consumed by the current fight, and unable to do the things that we know we need to do to properly sustain our all-volunteer force and restore our flexibility for an uncertain future." Casey added that "frequent deployments are taking their toll on our soldiers and their equipment."
Also in February, the Army reported that a mental health assessment team sent to evaluate troops deployed overseas determined that "reports of work-related problems due to stress, mental health problems and marital separations generally increased with each subsequent month of deployment." Also, the team's report said, "Soldiers on their third or fourth deployment were at significantly higher risk than soldiers on their first or second deployment for mental health problems and work-related problems." The team conducted its field studies between October and November 2007.
The military services have boosted the number of mental health professionals in war zones, including psychologists and social workers, the three surgeon generals told the panel. But the same stresses that troops experience from frequent and long deployments have a deleterious effect on recruitment and retention of mental health professionals, Schoomaker told the hearing. Behavioral health personnel, he said "are among the most frequently deployed."
Schoomaker said the Army tries to meet its target of one behavioral health professional per 1,000 soldiers, but the mental heath assessment team said deployed soldiers reported in 2007 that they had "more difficulty accessing behavioral health services...." Behavioral health specialists also told the assessment team that they saw a significant increase in the advice they gave commanders about mental health issues and at the same time experienced higher burnout themselves.
COMMENTS
- Let's be a little more clear on who is serving the 15 months. I work in a joint/coalition environment. This IS the ARMY's War. It is ONLY the Army serving 15 months. Moreover, it is ONLY a handful of Airmen, Marines, or Sailors serving up to 12 months as the majority of th rotations have remained at 4-6 month rotations. Those that do serve more than 4-6 months do so by exception. Being on my 10th month, I've now seen 2 full rotations of our sister services. This is a gross abuse of a single service serving within the DOD and a classic example of 50% of the workforce carrying 90% of the work. Where is the DOD oversight? R. Wilson Posted November 20, 2008 9:59 AM
- Greetings. As a combat deployed mental health proffessional, I do not see the situation getting any better. The troops in Afganistan do much better than the troops deployed to Iraq. One simple reason is troops feel a mission is being accomplished in Afganistan while in Iraq they are just target practice. In Iraq, the patrol to draw fire to then engage the enemy. I have deployed to Iraq and have worked with soldiers from both fronts and the Iraq deployed soldiers, on the average, are more acutely ill. Mental health professionals are not superheros. We go through the same stresses of deployment as everyone else and we are their to support others. this leads to burnout and the uncertainty of the future is another source of dissatisfaction. Of course, knowing that if you left your job, the civilian sector will pay you twice as much for your services as the DoD does not go very far for job satisfaction. I also find it insulting that the military has not recieved the highest raises possible of 5% and instead get 3.5%. What a way to thank your military- go fight but we won';t give you the maximum raise but keep getting shot at. Hmmmm. Makes you think.. John R Posted April 25, 2008 12:09 PM
- Our troops may be volunteers, and the vets of WWII certainly were deployed far longer. They deserve abiding appreciation for that. Yet it should also be noted that the vast majority were not engaged with the enemy every day. Where they were, the psych casualties rose. For instance, Iwo Jima had a ratio of 1:1 for every KIA there was a permanent psych casualty... what made this so signficant was their sustained combat of over 30 days -- which was the exception in WWII. Folk were rotated to the rear and fresh troops brought forward. There are no fresh troops now and every day is combat because there is no "rear" to rest every week. This is very, very wearing. One final stat. Studies have shown that 20% of troops in WWII actually fired their weapon at the enemy. In current war, it has passed 90%. That alone should say something! VMiller Posted April 25, 2008 11:40 AM
