Gulf War Syndrome II

Well, what do you expect when you fight a second Gulf War? Spiked's Brendan O'Neill has this interesting story outta England, where "British law firms are 'anticipating a large number of claims from servicemen returning from the Gulf?over Gulf War syndrome and friendly fire.'"

While there is still much medical doubt about the existence of GWS, the broader debate about it fits a very modern pattern for post-conflict squabbling. Every conflict now seems to be followed by its own syndrome. No war appears complete without troops threatening to sue their commanders for making them do risky things. And soldiers often claim that the experience of war has caused them everlasting stress. What's going on?

He concludes:

Today's troops have a much more individuated experience of war. They often appear more as isolated individuals at risk from syndromes and sickness, than as a collective force with a war to win. In such isolated experiences of conflict, perceptions of risk and sickness loom large in the military mind. So even as doubt is cast by some on the latest case of Gulf War syndrome, the notion that war is some kind of pathology is likely to persist.

Comments

[Corporal Punishment]

…and the current witless Army join-up campaign, “An Army of One”, can’t make that any better.

It’s all a part of the whole “warrior” thing that’s spread through our society, from sci-fi T.V. to old “how to defeat the Japanese economic juggernaut” guides. It’s _so_ much cooler to look at lone warriors of amazing skill and daring doing their bit than grunts doing what they’re told and muddling through….hard to recruit for that life, better to concentrate on myths or water-skiing.

Meanwhile, wars continue to be fought by _soldiers_, which is a different thing entirely.

[Joe]

Don’t be too harsh on “warrior” it’s just a cliched phrase, akin to proactive. It’s not bad to be proactive, just a cliched turn of phrase. Warrior is not a bad phrase. The problem with “soldier” is that it had come to seem so pedestrian. After all, most soldiers NEVER fight, they do nothing more glamorous or dangerous than string wire, or repair diesel engines. In short, they are ATT linemen or the local mechanic.
“Warrior” was/is a way of trying to spice the concept of soldier up. It’s not just being a lineman, or ‘phone operator, or truck driver… it is something, special. Hence the term Warrior.
Words mean what we want them to mean. True there is a technical and major difference between soldiers (Roman Legionaries) and warriors (Arminious’ followers), but our society really sees them as roughly analogous. So, we adopt the phrase “warrior” or “War fighter.” It’s not that bad.
Finally, no one liked “Be All You Can Be’ when it came out, it was too self-actualizing, didn’t emphasize the collective nature of the Army. Now the phrase is iconic. Betcha in 20 years when they change the slogan from an Army of One to something else, everyone will complain then too!

[Madog]

I’d say “An Army of One” is a glimpse into the future. How much longer before a soldier is encased in an armored combat exoskeleton with the firepower of several tanks and is backed up by a small legion of autonomous combat drones under his command?

[Tom]

“An Army of One” is a helluva lot better than “The U.S. Army Wants to Join You”. Remember that one from the dim, dark ’70s?

Personally, I think PFC Jessica Lynch should copyright her alleged comment of “I’m an American soldier, too” to her rescuers, and then sell the rights to the Army.

[jjjohnson]

“Now those who were living did their best to survive,
In that mad world of dust, blood and fire.
And for seven long weeks, I kept meself alive,
While the bodies around me piled higher.”

-Waltzing Matilda

[Corp. Pun.]

No-one should try to “spice up” the actual duties and hazards of being a soldier.