Thank you, Captain Wales

HRH Prince Harry has recently commented on his difficulties about leaving behind his comrades. A very moving account - representative of what many in his situation experience.

Below is the link to my

LinkedIn article: Thank you, Captain Wales

What I understand about PTSD

I'd like to tell you a story about myself, for a change. Please bear with me - the relevance will become clear!

The other morning, I woke up having dreamt of my Dad. (He passed away in 1999 after a gruesome battle with cancer.) I told him politely but firmly that I don't want to argue with him again and that I'm not interested in his opinion.

Breathing deeply.

My Dad has always been an avid sportsman - no challenge was too much for him. He could never understand why I wasn't more like the son he would have wanted. My younger sister was much more of a tomboy. She could do all the things kids do long before I even attempted them. (I don't know what made me so shy and scared in the first place, but I just was.)

When my Dad got fed up with me not learning to swim - he resorted to throwing me into the water. I was too young to retain a very detailed memory. What I do know is that I went into a state of shock and nearly drowned. He rescued me, and the whole event won't have lasted longer than a few seconds. But it had a profound influence on my life ever since.

• I try to avoid anything to do with sudden contact with water, whether it is deep or shallow.
• I feel uneasy about heights.
• I loathe the feeling of slipping and losing the ground beneath my feet.
• I hate the idea that I could fall.
• Even just watching other people take risks leaves me anxious that something might happen.

Dreams of endless falling have, thankfully, long subsided. I'm no longer at school where I have to find excuses for not being willing to do what everybody else attempts. But it is still there.

And now it's beginning to change.
I'm not talking about some miracle cure. It has been a long process, and it's not concluded yet. I know, of course, that there are some major differences compared to what some of you have experienced:

• For those of you who have been diagnosed with PTSD or show some of the symptoms, the events which caused it will have been much more recent.
• Most of you will therefore remember much more detail - unless, of course, that memory is suppressed.
• And, it goes without saying, that unlike in my example, few people will be able to relate to what it is you have experienced. But they don't have to understand every little detail. It's a misconception that nobody understands because "they haven't been there".

Much more important are the communalities:

1. It is not your fault!
   Despite all the training and the preparation - you can't control the thunderstorm in your brain. We don't yet know why some people just shake events off and get on with life while others are deeply affected. And though we can speculate on the kinds of events that might lead to post-traumatic stress - we can't predict it. Nor can we prevent it.
2. You need to do something about it - or nothing will change!
   No matter how difficult it is, only you can spark the change. Therapists can help - but you are at the center of it.
   Rather than just focus on the trauma: Try something new; do something that you never thought you could do. Can't think of anything? How many of you have attempted to write a short story? Paint a portrait? Learn a foreign language? Have a go at acting? What's the thing you think you could never do? Then try it. You won't be the next Picasso or Michelangelo overnight - but there is so much satisfaction in achieving even part of something you wouldn't have thought possible.
   Trust me - it will give you confidence. And that confidence will carry on into other areas of your life. You need to find people you can trust, of course: a writers' club where everybody is working on a publication is probably not the best start. But a beginners class in an adult education college will be a very supportive and encouraging setting.
   If you find even such small steps too scary - then you ought to talk to someone about medication, at least temporarily.
3. Therapy - help - doesn't have to involve "going there again"
   There is no "one-size-fits-all", and some of you might be so deeply affected that you need therapy. There are loads of approaches out there, and even for a professional it can be a challenge to navigate through them.
   "Talking about it" seems to be something we would all intuitively recommend - but that's not the only option. Nor it it necessarily always the best. I've done an awful lot of "talking" and it has never changed anything. And if someone were to suggest to "take me back in time" and make me relive what happened, I would finally be able to sprint. Why would I want to re-experience what it feels like to nearly drown???
   If you don't have a GP or receive therapy via some other route, have a chat with the guys at www.ptsdresolution.org.
4. The road to discovery might involve some "trial and error"
   Whether it is a new hobby or therapy - your first attempt might not be successful. This can feel like a major setback, given that it might have cost you considerable effort to make that step in the first place. But, again, it doesn't mean that there's something wrong with you. It might just not have been a good match. A professional in that particular area should unterstand that and should be able to help you find an alternative.
   But don't give up. You can't run away from it anyway!
   Deep down, though maybe hidden away, you have all the skills necessary to get onto the road of recovery! I know that - and I believe in you.
5. You can get your life back on track!
   And you have to. You might have dependants - children, partners. But you also have your whole life still ahead of you. You have a responsibility to do something useful with it. The man (woman) you once were is still inside of you!

Ulitmately, nobody can do it for you.

What it was for me? Well ...

I joined a boot camp class - and, yes, you're allowed to laugh. Me - who doesn't have a record of avid exercise; in fact, I hated it as a child. Now I feel like I'm going crazy when I have to miss a class. I wouldn't dream of getting too dirty as a child - now I end up sweaty, dirty and smelling of wet soil ... and I love the way people look at me on my commute home. I love the way my muscles ache - muscles I didn't even know I had. My friends think I've gone completely barmy. Or, more precise: My civvy friends think I've gone mad; my ex-military friends smile in a slightly condescending way, sometimes mixed in with a "why would anybody do that voluntarily ...?". And, yes, there's the occasional "well done". But none of that is important. It's my journey.

Me being me, of course, it couldn't just be any "military-style fitness class". It had to be the "real thing" - short of joining up, obviously. (That's a whole different story ...) Why? Now this will make you smile as well ... Because I trust them. I trust the man who has worn a uniform. I admire and respect them. I trust them to know what they are doing. I will never get to what they are capable of. But it's an incredibly supportive environment. We all feel part of a team - no matter what our fitness levels. There is so much mutual encouragement. You get praise when it's due - and you're challenged when you don't try hard enough. And they have a genuine interest in people - it never feels as if they were just doing a job.

The culmination of this experience so far was a trip to an "obstacle course". OMG. There was an awful lot I didn't attempt and for a while I felt like quitting - but I didn't. I still remember the adrenalin rush which accompanied what I did master. It worked, because I knew there were two Marines I could rely on. I knew I would be in safe hands. I wasn't pressured. And I wasn't petrified either, I even enjoyed it - continuing to run in soaking wet clothes to try and keep warm (having waded through a small river), shoes that suddenly feel so much heavier, the mud splashing up and always at the verge of slipping. And, yes, I do want to do it again and see if I can push myself a little bit further.

I will never be the one to jump off a cliff into the sea. But I would like to have a go at abseiling within the next 5 to 10 years.


What's your challenge?

It doesn't matter what it is,
as long as it takes you out of
your comfort zone!

Make one tiny step today - and keep going!



If you want to share your story but don't want to create a Gmail account - email me: sabine.pitcher@mail.com - and I'll add it.

It's not just me then ... "Bring in the Military!"

I read a lovely quote in the paper - in a not-so-lovely article about flood victims. 30,000 acres of country are submerged; many claim that this is, ultimately, a man made problem since the Environment Agency stopped dredging the rivers and even flogged off the machinery 20 years ago.

Here's what one of the residents said:

     "I'd have greater faith in the Environment Agency
      if there  was a brigadier in charge of it."

The man refers to Brigadier Alex Birtwistle and the Army intervention during the 2001 outbreak of foot and mouth disease. At the time, local farmers held protest meetings, calling the Ministry of Agriculture incompetent. (The brigadier had postponed his retirement for the army intervention.)

Soldiers worked continuously "collating intelligence, giving slaughtermen weapons training, and working out how to shower down vets fast enough to keep the diagnoses ticking over". Most had served in Bosnia, Sierra Leone or the Gulf. Now they became known in the farming community for their clipped vowels and organisational skills.  

And I don't think I need to mention the 2012 Olympic Games. Many of the soldiers who supported the games had just returned from deployment and should have gone on leave. For many of them, accommodation was improvised - in comparison, Camp Bastion offered a life of luxury and here they were in the middle of London. And, yet, they saved the games and made them an unforgettable experience.

How much more evidence does this country need? There are now thousands of military personnel being made redundant - they are highly skilled, they know how to adjust and to adapt and to get a job done.

So I have finally started a little project to help promote the idea - ultimately, to promote (ex-) military personnel and their skills.

Please go to my next blog - "Let's talk about transition" - maybe you would like to contribute as well?

Sources:
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2001/mar/30/footandmouth.angeliquechrisafis
Daily Mail 29/01/2014 p. 6

Can we really have equality?

Maybe I just haven’t understood the concept of equality.

I can’t believe that it’s been over a year (September 2012, to be precise) since this story made me angry:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/9554528/British-soldier-gives-birth-in-Camp-Bastion.html

Yes, it does happen that a woman is unaware of being pregnant. This soldier was “said to have passed fitness tests and training, including an eight-mile run with a 25lb backpack”. You’re tested for drugs and for AIDS and I don’t know what else. But it says in the article that “Forces can’t insist on pregnancy tests.” Why ever not? Because it would be discriminatory – as it only affects women? Such stupidity. They’d rather put a mother and her baby at risk than acknowledge that there are differences that have to be dealt with rather than ignored. A pregnant woman doesn’t belong on the frontline.

They flew out specialist medical staff, and later flew the baby to its Grandma – all at the taxpayer’s expense – so that the mother could return to duty. I’m sure it will have made a welcome change for the medical teams – but, imagine, there had been complications. (Do they have incubators in Camp Bastion?) Or a fight, or an explosion somewhere and not all medics available …

It then went all quiet in the media.

Fast forward to November 2013:

You will all have heard of the three female RAF reservists who have been awarded compensation for allegedly having been made to extend the length of their strides beyond what is recommended for women. (I'm not addressing here the issue of whether or not guidelines weren't adhered to and why those women have left it so long to complain - that will be the topic of another article.)

Is it not maybe time to acknowledge that we can’t have equality? (I’m obviously not an HR person.)

Physiologically, men and women are different. On average (statistically), women can’t build as much muscle mass as men. Constant over-striding can, indeed, damage hip ligaments in women. The Military (maybe I should say the MoD), has taken this into account when they introduced separate guidelines – and the below are just a couple of examples I could easily get hold of:

• The length of stride for women is 28”, for men it is 30”. (Following the above compensation ruling, the RAF have now reduced the guidelines for women to 27”.)
• During the Army Officer fitness tests, women are expected to perform 21 press-ups in two minutes, men 44.

Now, one could argue that the test merely does what it says on the tin – assessing a person’s fitness. So what? And does the length of stride matter – unless you’re on the parade ground? You’re hardly “marching” on patrol. I have closely watched a few military bands marching and have honestly wondered why there  doesn't  seem to be a minimum body height. The women among them can only have been over-striding – otherwise they would fall behind. (And one rather short veteran reported how he was regularly “running” more than "marching” because otherwise he wouldn’t have been able to keep up. And a few tall guys have struggled with shortening their length of stride below what was comfortable for them. So this isn't just an issue "men vs. women".)

On a practical level: How is a parade going to work with potentially three different stride lengths?

Someone once told me that everybody in the Armed Forces needs to maintain a high level of fitness as they all have to be deployable at short notice, should the need arise. (Yes, in practice, some might lack behind …) Everybody needs to be able to fire a gun, if necessary, and therefore perform to certain minimum standard. Everybody needs to be able to run, carry heavy loads and duck for cover – without months of preparation once you’re past initial training.

Am I wrong - is this “merely” an HR issue?

Should we not simply acknowledge that we’re all different and employ every individual according to their strengths (and weaknesses)? I’m sure that there are plenty of situations when you’ve made such decisions anyway. You will have chosen the tallest or the shortest or the fastest … the calmest or the most alert … and there’s huge benefit in us all being different.

But the Military isn’t a working environment like any other. If you’ve lost your best man / woman, then everybody else needs to step in. Specialism aside - whoever is the “last man standing”, needs to be able to do what needs doing – load a shell, carry a comrade … And whatever these tasks are that everybody has to be able to perform needs to be reflected in assessments and standards.

I once asked a medically discharged veteran why not more wounded are being retained – for example, in education and training, in selection, in training development. Surely their experience must be very valuable. He didn’t know the answer. Is this a about fitness standards?

Or is this about our “image” of what a soldier (sailor / airman) should be like?

 

I once saw on television a PE instructor of the US Army with only one hand. He couldn’t have done all the exercises he was assessing, but nobody would have doubted that he’s the right man for the job. Are we struggling to take equality (difference) seriously because of some ancient image of a “man in uniform”? (Women still aren’t eligible for every role in the Forces – that they can't serve on submarines is not due to physiological differences, not to mention the fact that they are exempt from frontline combat.)

 

So, by definition, we don’t have equality anyway. What we have is a mess of not dealing properly with difference.

And then I made the mistake to go on the website of the German Army. They don’t publish all their assessment criteria, but I found something else: They have different categories of fitness for service. For example, you can join but forever be exempt from riding on a tank if you have back problems.^*) (I also know of a British soldier who – after he had developed a condition - was allowed to deploy but couldn’t go on patrol. Apart from the associated management and planning issues – it’s highly demoralising. You’re still part – and yet you’re not.)

And a fairly recent change to the law in Germany means that anybody who gets injured in service – no matter how long he (or she) would have been serving - is entitled to lifelong employment with the Bundeswehr. (See my yesterday’s post.)

Now, for the foreseeable future, the German Forces won’t enter into open combat^**) – they provide medical teams and help during the reconstruction. But the UK Military is constantly deploying somewhere – and they are shrinking. How much flexibility can they afford? Conversely, how “equal” do our soldiers need to be?

And one final thought:

I remember having read something about the Israeli Army years ago – they were among the first to recruit women. And they seem to have come to regret it. “Women and children first” seems to be a natural instinct and there is evidence that is has led to men (male soldiers) risk their lives and go against orders in attempts to protect female comrades.

My answer remains:

I don’t think we can have equality – not in society; certainly not in the Military.

So – rather than pretend it was otherwise:

• How much difference can be allowed, and how can we find a better way to deal with differences?
• How can standards be set – adhered to and reviewed – that reflect the requirements of the job (and not answer to political agendas)?

And, finally:

• Should exceptions be made? And for whom?

Your answers?

 

 

^*) This is from an unofficial website not hosted by the Bundeswehr - http://www.bundiswehr.de/

^**) Unless by accident – as happened to the soldier described in my yesterday’s post.

The same plight the world over - Germany

When German soldiers deployed to Kosovo, they expected to provide humanitarian aid - not to be involved in any form of combat. However, Kosovo and Somalia - and, of course, Afghanistan - presented them with situations for which they were not prepared. In 2012, the Bundeswehr counted 1,143 cases of PTSB, 194 added that year. This is only gradually reaching the public.

A self-help group / charitable organisation ("Bund Deutscher Veteranen") founded in 2010 has succeeded in having regulations changed a year later:

     Every serviceman and woman who has been wounded or suffered mental health issues since 1992
     has the right to remain in service, if it has been established that the injury was service related.

     They can remain in service for life, even if they did not join as professional soldiers.

One case was published (Der Spiegel online, 7 Oct 2013) of a soldier who is basically unfit for work, has daily (!) therapy and regularly loses his temper. It took several years until his condition was accepted as being service related - years of uncertainty for him and his family. He now works on a base near his home, but his commanding officer does not know what to do with him, nor do his colleagues. He won't go near weapons any longer.

The Bundeswehr now plans to introduce pre-deployment screening to rule out any psychological issues which could increase the risk of developing PTSD. According to one study, 1 out of 5 German soldiers who are deployed has a pre-existing medical condition (Sueddeutsche Zeitung online, 26 Nov 2013).

Like the UK Armed Forces, the Bundeswehr is going through a reform - at the heart of it is the reduction of the number of troops and the closure and reduction of bases. An increasing number of soldiers serve far from home. Troops feel uninformed and left alone with their worries - the number of formal complaints has reached its highest level since the foundation of the Bundeswehr in 1959 (N24 online, 29 Dec 2013).

All eyes are now on Ursula von der Leyen, the new German Defence Minister - her rhetoric, so far, has impressed soldiers in Germany (N21 online, 4 Jan 2014).

Well, the one thing that's changing is that soldiers and their issues are making it into the media in Germany, there are support groups and gradually increasing support from the public. The debate in the UK has been going on for a while - but how much further have we really got?

And why can't we seem to get to grips with PTSD?

Don't punish the families

So now all three Marines have been named. Maybe somebody will come up with something to do with "public interest". Well, I'm a member of the public, and it is not in my interest.

Marine A has made a mistake. A grave mistake. And he's now paying for it. So is his family - inevitably - even without his name being dragged through the media. His family, his children, his friends, they are all deeply affected. What good is being served by naming him? And now the two others who weren't even found guilty? This is not fair. It is not just. It is simply wrong.

Let me tell you a little story:

My grandfather was, as far as I know, not a particularly nice man. He could be volatile. He worked as a prison warden in the concentration camp in Dachau. He was probably a member of the Nazi party. (All the records were lost in the war.) His family will have lived as comfortably as was possible in wartime Germany in the 1940s. Until one day he was shot in the back and killed - supposedly by his own men. The story goes that he had seen something with which he didn't agree. Whatever happened, overnight my grandmother had become a persona-non-grata. The widow of a traitor. With two young children, one still a baby, she was suddenly on her own.
     Fast forward two years and the war comes to an end. What do you think happened next? There was no mercy for the widow of a Nazi. She couldn't win. It took years for the Allied Forces to sift through all the documents and establish that she had done nothing wrong. Meanwhile she an her children had to live off left-over potatoes in the fields. I have a photo of her in those days - she looked awful. Hardly a trace left of the elegant and confident woman she once was.

No, the story isn't over yet.

I didn't know any of this until I was in my mid 20s. A distant relative mentioned it. All through my school years, I would have said what all my class mates said: 'My Granddad died in the war.' Assuming that this was on the battlefield. What my Grandma had gone through had left such a profound impact that it was never mentioned again. Now, suddenly, I was the granddaughter of a Nazi. And I have felt the "mark of Cain" upon me ever since.

Yes, Colonel Collins, I know what it means that one's deeds follow us down through history.

Today's situation is, of course, very different. But there is one common consequence: "Know it is your family who will suffer ..." - Marine A tragically forgot that. But we have no right to make matters even worse - for people who are innocent. Marine A is not a common criminal. He was serving his country. His family deserves protection. And I cannot for the life of me understand why anybody in the "justice" system could think differently.

Rules of Engagement - open letter to Colonel Tim Collins

Dear Colonel Collins,

I am writing to you in response to your commentary in the Daily Mail on Armistice Day. Before I do so, I would like to emphasise that I have the highest regard for you - for you as a man, and for what you stand for. This is about a difference in opinion. I would also like to point out that I am fully aware that I owe it to men like you than I can have a blog and express my opinion freely - without fear of repercussions. I am making use of this right for which so many lives have been sacrificed.

A lot has been said and written this week about "Marine A" - too much, one might say. You are very critical of the "PC brigade, to whom the very existence of the British Army seems to be an affront". And you ask for mitigating circumstances to be taken into consideration. Though I think I agree with your conclusion, I would like to point out a few dangers in your line of argument.

Firstly, though I am a civilian, I am by no means "blissfully ignorant of the horrendous realities of combat". Strangely enough, when I first heard of the case of Marine A (and the others), my immediate thoughts were: 'Of course, it is impossible for me to fully grasp what these men have gone through.' And, naturally, I was happy to accept a whole range of possible excuses. Little was I prepared for what happened next.

I have spent the last three years talking to men (and a few women) who are in their process of leaving the Armed Forces, and to an increasing number of veterans. Some of them have become very dear friends. Naturally, the topic came up in conversation. One said "I think, we need to talk!". One or two nearly jumped at me - a figure of speech. They were very angry with me at the suggestion that Marine A shouldn't face the full consequences of his actions.

These friends have all been in command during combat - or in conflict. They have seen action in Northern Ireland, Iraq, Afghanistan and some of the places in Africa which seem to have been all but forgotten. No, I don't know the details of what they encountered. But they explained to me in no uncertain terms that never, under no circumstances, must a soldier threaten or kill an adversary who no longer poses a danger. There are no exceptions.

Marine A knew that he was in the wrong - he rejected the idea of first aid; he made sure no senior officer was around; he dragged the prisoner out of sight; and he gave orders to remain quiet. This was not a spontaneous action - like not having heard the call for cease fire. This was a deliberate action. Some of those friends of mine went as far as to say that the men who were with Marine A would have had a duty to stop him.

It is me, the civilian, who didn't understand this at first. But Marine A is a senior NCO in an elite unit - he failed his profession. He failed all those who were in similar situations and who did the right thing. I have read your speech. (I have also read your book.) Those friends of mine can quote from your speech even today!

It is a big step to take another human life. It is not to be done lightly. I know of men who have taken life needlessly in other conflicts. I can assure you they live with the mark of Cain upon them.

We will never know how many will have felt the temptation to pull the trigger. And who is to blame them - after they have scraped body parts off the streets in Northern Ireland; after they've seen comrades mutilated by IEDs. But they withstood. I know of no soldier who enjoys the act of killing. Occasionally - and within the narrow constraints of the rules of engagement - it is a necessity. Like all the others, Marine A will have had those ruled read out to him time and time again. He will even have reminded others of those rules. There can be no exception.

Our soldiers (airmen, sailors, and the women, of course!) don't deserve our respect because they go out and shoot people. Not even because they get shot at - that is an occupational hazard (as they tell me). And, yes, of course we owe them the best of equipment, training and support! But they well and truly deserve our respect because, despite all of this, they uphold the principles of civilisation! We cannot allow them to become like the forces they are fighting.

Yes, there might be mitigating circumstances; maybe Marine A will be released early on parole. I wish this had never been dragged into the media the way it has. I know that the Marines are looking after him and his family - who are badly affected by the incident, made even worse by all the media attention.

No, maybe we cannot always trust our judges to make the right decisions. Then there are appeal processes. Those are the systems in place in this country. People make mistakes - that is only human. But they have to own up - especially when the mistake has cost a life. I am worried to read your casual statement - regarding the accusation you had to face yourself - that "yes, he did suffer a small cut to his head" (though "no one died"). This seems to imply that you did, indeed, cross the boundary. Whether or not this interpretation is intended, it has no bearing on the current case. Every suspected breech of the rules needs to be investigated. I read your book; what you had to go through all those years ago must have been a terrible experience. But this is not about setting an example - this is about taking those rules seriously, rules which, in many cases, distinguish us from our opponents.

I am painfully aware that I can lead a relatively ignorant life thanks to men like you. You go out, you see and do horrible things, so that I can live in peace. I also understand enough to know that the atrocities you are confronted with will often leave a mark. We need processes in place to intervene before this leads to a breech of the rules of engagement. Those rules have not been written by civilians. Yes, they might be the result of the work of desk jockeys. But they are your rules. Those friends of mine who I hold dearly and respect would not hesitate to defend those rules. Not just because they are rules. But because they believe in them.

One of them used to say "as long as there's life, there is hope" - when I tried to make a case for "a fate worse than death". But it is he who knows what he's talking about - what ending a life is all about; while for me it is an intellectual exercise. He did what was necessary, and I think he is still paying the price, without complaints. He has just said to me: "What would have happened had Marine A instead done everything in his power to try and save that man's life - captured on camera? Imagine the message that would have sent out." We will never know the answer.

Instead, we are now going down a very dangerous path. A court in America has ruled that a soldier has become a threat to society because of his service in Iraq. This soldier had asked for help and wasn't listened to. Our soldiers are no threat! By far the majority come back and reintegrate into civilian society. In fact, they are among the most peaceful people I know because they are trained in restraint as much as in fighting. And they understand the value of life. At the moment, the public debate seems to indicate that because we send soldiers into combat, we need to be prepared for fallout. (There's less agreement whether this would be in the form of PTSD or anti-social behaviour.) I would have happily signed up to that not so long ago. But now my friends would turn round and rightly ask "have you learned nothing from us?"

Let us leave it to the court now and the due processes. Let us focus on ensuring that our soldiers are adequately equipped, and that those who cannot cope with what they have to deal with get the right help and get it quickly. I pray that whichever soldier finds him- or herself next in a similar situation will make the right decision.

And I hope that we can engage with each other in a way that is rational, and that shows respect and compassion. Let's not think of our servicemen and women as either villains or heroes. Because that's not how they think of themselves. They do a job; and they do it well - often under difficult circumstances. When they come back, let's accept them for what they are. We are all part of the same society, and we can learn from each other. Men like you have an important role to play if the Covenant is to become reality. The public debate should not be about Marine A - this is about all our (present and past) servicemen and women.

Very sincerely yours

Don't employ a veteran - he could suffer from PTSD

Why is it that, at the moment, whenever our troops are mentioned, it is in the context of PTSD - even in a recent BBC special about Northern Ireland.

Don't get me wrong - PTSD exists. It's real. Research might even have been able to link it so specific patterns in brain activity that are out of balance. We send our troops to some pretty nasty places and, despite the best of preparation, sometimes situations occur with which some of them can't cope. The same goes for our police force, ambulance staff, firefighters. Most of the time, our troops are not in combat - and life in the barracks can actually be pretty boring.

Yes, they deserve our respect and our understanding. It is hard to believe that there are still veterans who, after decades of suffering, have not been given a diagnosis. And those who have are quite often prescribed a whole cocktail of medication which is disabling in itself. But there is a dangerous downside to the current media coverage: it adds to a negative stereotype. First they were just uneducated, violent and potential addicts; now they are ill and need looking after. What they are not is normal human beings, like you and I.

Statistically, one in four troops returning from combat zones will develop symptoms of PTSD.
Also statistically, one in four in the general population will develop mental health symptoms at some stage in their lives.

I have seen the stage play "The Two Worlds of Charlie F.". And I have also just seen the film adaptation of "Sunshine over Leath".  The first was mesmerizing, extraordinarily well acted. (By that I mean that it was what I expected after all the many conversations I have had with people who had come extremely close to similar events. Obviously, I have never seen anything like it myself.) The latter was actually much more useful - two young soldiers who had just left the Army. They were struggling with life - but a lot of that was actually independent of their time in the Army.

They are among us. And most of them are actually pretty normal. Yes, they sometimes struggle - but for different reasons. They might not understand the hidden rules in civilian organisations. They might expect actions to be carried out. They will be irritated if after three meetings it is still not clear what ought to be achieved. But they can adjust. Having been made redundant might actually prove a much bigger trauma than a few months in a "hostile environment".

What they struggle with the most is our stereotypes and prejudices! Headlines like "Homecoming Horrors" in today's Shortlist certainly don't help.

Troops to teachers

And why ever not?

An article today in The Guardian / The Observer is sparking a debate on Twitter. (You can read the article here.) Teachers come from all walks of life, so why should this be an issue? According to the article:

Candidates, from the army, Royal Navy and Royal Air Force, wouldn't need a degree and would undertake two years training on the job, with one day a week at university, qualifying them in around half the time it usually takes to become a teacher.

And why ever not?

I regularly have tears in my eyes when I look over the CV of a service leaver - what they have undertaken in terms of training and qualifications could easily fill a page. They have trained, led, planned, worked in teams. None of it - repeat: none - seems worth anything in civvie street. 

Now, if "troops" become teachers, they still have to go through all the same assessments, tests, and exams. They won't automatically become teachers - they have to pass.

So what's the problem?

Nobody says - as suggested by Mr. Northice from the "frontline" (I assume he  means the frontline in the classroom") - that someone who has served is, per se, a good role model for children. That's why they don't automatically qualify as teachers!

But he's more seriously wrong in his assumptions about service personnel. He says that:

the Armed Forces are about using violence, force, aggression and/ or coercion to maintain the dominance of a nationalist narrative within a country's domestic and foreign policy, and the experience of its citizens' cultural life. That is not teaching.    

No, of course it isn't. Nor does it reflect the daily reality of being in HM Armed Forces. Mr. Northice - if that is your name - have you actually ever spoken to somebody who is serving? I  have spend a lot of time over the past two years doing just that; and I can assure you that 99% of the time, aggression, force, violence would get you nowhere and would be sanctioned. Even out in Afghanistan, their aim is to work with the local police and population - not fight them.

The Service personnel I have met were, without exception, friendly, polite, humble, articulate, attentive - and calm. I've never witnessed any of them lose their temper, raise their voice, or insist on being right. 

So - if they pass and make it into teacher training - then they will be extremely good role models, indeed.

Post Traumatic Stress Disorder

I have just filled in a survey about the attitude to Combat Stress - another word for PTSD, or C-PTSD or shell shock or ....

As a psychologist, I know a thing or two about post-traumatic stress disorder - how it can come about and what potential treatment options there are. But does anybody really understand it? We can't explain why a group of soldiers will go through the same battle, see the same horrible scenes, but one or two of them will struggle later. It can catch up on them when they least expect it. You don't necessarily see it. And most of them won't talk about it.

I have met Northern Ireland veterans who are still on medication, all these years later. Who sometimes don't want to go to sleep because they know they will wake up in the night, sweating, feeling as if it had only just happened.

In the wake of the war in Afghanistan, PTSD is now a recognised condition, but many still doubt it exists. They still believe that all it requires is to "pull yourself together".

One of the questions in the survey was whether I believe there is a cure ... My honest answer: I don't know. Each case is different. Some will get over it if they can talk about it. Some will take medication and will otherwise lead a perfectly normal life. Others will continue to struggle.

There still is a stigma attached to PTSD / Combat Stress, which makes it difficult to talk about it for those who are affected. But I think there is also a growing awareness that there might be no cure. To some extent, no matter what treatment, people might still have to live with the consequences. So why talk about it? Why talk about it and risk a reaction that only shows a total lack of understanding?

I don't know the answers. But I would still urge those affected to talk - by NOT talking,

• we will never know the full scope of the problem - we will continue to speculate:
• you miss the chance to find out that there are others out there in the same situation (realising this can help!)
• you won't realise that there are, indeed many people out there who would like to support and, at least, try to understand.

My favourite knock-out argument is: "You can't understand, you haven't been there, you haven't seen what I have seen." Though this is undoubtedly true, it would mean that I can talk about hardly anything, because there is so much I haven't experienced - hunger; neglegt; domestic violence; abortion; delinquency; prison - I have been lucky and have probably led a rather sheltered life. That doesn't mean I can't empathize; it doesn't mean I can't understand.

The biggest fear of those who don't talk might not be the fear of being misunderstood - it's the fear of living through it again. And who could blame them? Who could blame them for trying to lock it away?

If you have read until here, you will by now have guessed that the topic isn't new to me. I have friends who have been diagnosed with PTSD. Some have been medically discharged. Some have recovered.

When you are ready - I'm willing to listen. And there are others out there trained to listen and trained to help you make the next step.

The day after Remembrance Day

The day after Remembrance Day 2012

Yesterday was Remembrance Day - the first time for me in Whitehall. And what an event it was. While I'm still thinking about what it meant for me - being among the crowd of members of our Armed Forces and civilians alike - a Navy veteran friend told me "there are fewer people in the crowd each year".

That got me thinking. And now I have finally found a topic for the blog I created back in the summer. Remembrance Day was yesterday. But we must remember every day! Rememberance is not just about the fallen - it is also about those still alive - those serving and those who have left the Forces

So, over the coming months, I want to use this blog to post my thoughts - thoughts not about combat and war; thoughts about transition - out of the Forces and into civilian life.

These thoughts are based on my conversations with active members of the Armed Forces, with service leavers, with those who have been made redundant or medically discharged, with veterans of wars of the past. I listen to them; I am fortunate to be able to help some of them, and to learn from them. But the thoughts published here are entirely my own.

Please feel free to add your comments.