groups

MartilnMexico, I will consider those “damaged” Vietnam veterans as you put it; the vast majority of them preferred a counselor who had served in combat just as they did. Ask most Vietnam vets and you will find that they would only open up to people who were there in Vietnam and had some idea of what they went through.

Why is it that a female rape victim will most often not be counseled by a male counselor; it is because they do not think that a man can relate to what they went through, or they just may feel uncomfortable with a male counselor. It is the same with combat veterans, although today many combat veterans do see counselors who had never served in combat; these counselors frequently do group therapy and have others in the group that did serve in combat to offset their inadequacy and give a certain comfort level to the clients.

I do not believe that a psychiatrist who would kill soldiers that were going off to combat would hold values that would help those same soldiers cope with their combat experiences. I think this person had no business counseling American combat soldiers.

You're right on all counts, EZ2. Combat veterans do not open up easily. Add to that the fact that he was against the war and deeply devoted to Islam, and it just doesn't make sense.

Psychiatrists are not in the business of sharing every experience their patients have. Considering the vast array of experiences their patients do have this would be virtually impossible. Psychiatrists are medical doctors whose primary function these days is to prescribe medication to patients. In the past I doubt that many psychiatrists were actually sent into combat. Their function was to be at military medical facilities to assist soldiers when they returned home. But, somehow that modus operandi was changed and psychiatrists are now put right out there in the theatre of combat. I really do not see the logic in sending a psychiatrist to a combat zone especially one who he himself recognizes as being constitutionally unsuited to the mission. I know there was a psychiatrist as one of the characters in the MASH series (Dr. Friedman I believe) so I guess some are out there. But, these psychiatrists need to be thoroughly screened. Just because a person is a mental health worker does not mean they have good mental health.

"Psychiatrists are not in the business of sharing every experience their patients have.”

I agree but still that does not negate the fact that the vast majority of combat veterans will not readily open up to a counselor who had no combat experience themselves. It is the same for alcoholics, and many rape victims; they prefer someone with a shared experience.

I believe that military psychiatrists need to be in the combat zone; they need to be there at the point of impact and intervene with these combatants before they leave the theater of operations. Waiting until the troops get home before there is any intervention gives the mental disorder a chance to take hold; we do not wait to treat physical wounds and why should we wait to treat mental wounds. The military maintains jails in combat zones for their troops who break the law but not having immediate psychiatric intervention for troops in a combat zone in my opinion is gross negligence.

"Just because a person is a mental health worker does not mean they have good mental health.”

Again, I agree, but I would expect for a mental health worker to know their own red flags and to seek counseling themselves if they felt emotionally disturbed. The alleged shooter at Ft. Hood could have hired a private, non-military, psychiatrist, off base. Yes, I understand that when a person has a mental illness they usually are not thinking straight, but it appears that this person had a stable exterior most of the time even though he was tormented within. Obviously his training as a psychiatrist was not as strong as his radical religious indoctrination.

According to the news reports;
He is an officer in the US military.
He was not a combat vet.
He wasn't cutting it as a doctor and was getting transfered to the front.
He was running around in a muslim religious outfit prior to transfer.
He blogged about praising suicide bombers.
He yelled the same religious phrases our enemies use during his attack.
He plotted and killed unarmed innocents without remorse.

Am I politically incorrect to point out that he was either the worst example of an enemy mole infiltrating our military or the best example of our government and military "looking the other way" so as not to offend anyone?

If the Taliban or Al-kida had some guy in their midst who praised the USA, dressed like an American, and was named John Smith or Billy-Bob Jones, do you think they'd look the other way?

(Think I'll post this in TQ&A too!)

Contrary to what some might suspect a US Army psychiatrist can hold other than a clinical position; they can hold a command position, and I think that the army dropped the ball. This guy was promoted from Captain to Major this past May; and generally with a promotion to Major comes a security clearance background check, and he was under investigation, or at least being looked at by the F.B.I., during the time he was promoted. That just does not make sense.

An army psychiatrist can command a psychological operations unit and conduct psych-ops warfare; which usually requires a security clearance. Medical doctors in the army can be put in charge of a company of soldiers; I have seen dentist who were a Lt. Colonel in charge of a dental detachment. Like in the T.V. show MASH the commanding officer was also a doctor.

Usually doctors who have a command position split their work 40-60; that is forty percent administrative and sixty percent clinical care with patients, but some; whether they like administrative work or not, may go more one way or the other. The bottom line is that the alleged shooter should have been able to pass a background security check before he was promoted to Major. A Major at minimum can hold a command position as an Executive Officer right under the Commanding Officer.

Can you imagine if a person with the attitude of this alleged shooter worked his way up the ranks to become a Colonel, or even a General?

That is why I believe the Army itself is largely responsible for what happened here. From news reports it sounds like it is very much aware of that and intends to scrutinize the role it may have played. Embarrasing isn't it? As if our military hasn't had enough bad press already. Nonetheless, the truth must be found. At least the shooter is still alive to provide some much needed answers as to why he went ballistic. He should have been taken out of the military years ago. This man may have been qualified to be a doctor but not a military doctor.

While considering how he might justify his actions in his own mind, it occurred to me that
he obviously had no problem shooting and killing people, even a pregnant woman, therefor his objection to being deployed appears to be based on religious interpretation instead of some sense of moral humanitarianism,

Of course the larger question is; is this a mental health issue and can this alleged shooter get a fair trial?

Why should this guy be exempt from pleading temporary insanity? I mean it seems like he has already been widely branded a terrorist by the general American public, and he did incite terror, but his testimony may be that he temporarily snapped, and that testimony may be supported by another, or other, psychiatrist. He may end up in a mental hospital and not a prison. I am trying to give this guy the benefit of the doubt because I doubt if they can find a jury that will give this man a non-bias trial. Most likely he will receive a General Court Martial under the Uniform Code of Military Justice and it has different rules than civilian trials. If the shooter lives to go to trial it will be interesting to see how this is handled and if the army will take any of the blame for this in open court.

true