U.S. soldier charged in comrades' deaths showed stress

“Russell had been escorted to the clinic, but once inside argued with the staff and was asked to leave.”

He’s gone there because he’s stressed out, a mental state not known for it rational behaviour & he was “asked” to leave? It’s a mental health clinic & they don’t want troublesome people in it?

As for getting his hands on his escorts gun, well, I am sure somebody aside from Russell is in deep hot water today.

'Up to one-fifth of the more than 1.7 million who have served in the two conflicts are believed to have symptoms of anxiety, depression and other emotional problems." Damn that is a neck of a lot of nutters about to return home and wander our streets, many of whom will have jobs.

yeah that stigma you be talking about, is a nice little word to push the truth further underground and breed evil. I mean what is a flashback? Some tripping drug where what you think is not reality.

U.S. soldier charged in comrades' deaths showed stress

Apparently, it was Captain Obvious who wrote that headline. A soldier in a war zone showed stress? You don't say!

Russell’s father said his son, who joined the Army in 1994 after a divorce and minor scrapes with the law, felt poorly treated at the stress center.

Finally, a possible motive.

When the news broke and everyone was talking about stress and fragging, I said it was silly to make such wild guesses. I stand by that. Now we have something to work with. And while this even may be proven to be false, it is worth building on.

likeitis at 09:11 AM JST - 13th May

Good morning Likeitis, I was wondering where you were. You sound like you are looking for vindication rather than actually saying anything Sergeant Russell.

Sounds like the study on why he did it was carried out by the same Japanes study groups that deduce things like, "Depressions is one reason for suicide" (after millions of dollars for think tanks).

As I said before, they should never have been there in the first place. In a way, I feel sorry for the guy, but that sympathy disappears the minute I think again about what he's done. There are ZERO excuses. You could apply the same rationale to some suicide bombers if you're going to seek out this criminal as a victim. Oh, the bomber's family was killed, he was in a warzone and traumatized by the constant fighting, couldn't get away -- so he naturally did something rash!

I'm not defending either, of course. My point is that I guarantee there will be some who come on here defending this murderer and saying 'goes with the territory (in war)' at best, while at worst saying things like, 'You can't condemn the man until you've walked a mile in his shoes'. I just want to point out that the same kind of moronic 'rationale' can be applied to the people called terrorists.

No excuses.

U.S. soldier charged in comrades' deaths showed stress

Apparently, it was Captain Obvious who wrote that headline. A soldier in >a war zone showed stress? You don't say!

I said the exact same thing and the MOD decided to remove it. LOL

grafton: You sound like you are looking for vindication rather than actually saying anything Sergeant Russell.

Guilty as charged. I do not pretend to know anything of Sergeant Russell. But I would like the discussion to proceed in a sensible manner. And its always nice to be able to say "I told you so.", especially after having some fool come give me hell for pointing out the simple fact that we had nothing to work with to judge the situation at that time.

Hey guys, let's all look at this in afair and balanced manner with no spin.

We don't yet know the full facts regarding this tragic event. My thoughts go out to all the dead service mens families. Let us reserve judgement until teh matter has been fully investigated and we know more.

And that's a wrap.

Some officials believe soldiers are reluctant to take advantage of the facilities because of the stigma attached to counseling in a military culture that promotes mental and physical toughness.

This is a key issue in all this. As somebody who has served in the military and who saw my fair share of combat, I can tell you that the emphasis on being tough gets stronger and stronger the closer you get to the front line. Moreover, individuals who cannot hack it in a combat unit are sometimes very reticent to come forward and seek help because of the strong underlying code of not deserting your fellow soldiers.

BillOreilly: "Let us reserve judgement until teh matter has been fully investigated and we know more."

Would you reserve judgement on a suicide bomber? This man has been proven to have murdered five US servicemen (two doctors). That is not up for debate. If you want to reserve judgement as to WHY he did it, fine, but he did it. There's nothing 'unfair' about condemning the man for his actions, any more than saying it's unfair to call the people who flew into towers on 9/11 because we don't know exactly what their personal reasons were for doing so (or didn't at the time).

I realize that that comment is going to anger some people, but it's the truth. The results themselves are incomparable in terms of carnage, of course, but the fact that a person/people murdered others is the same.

Listening to a radio host back in America who is actually in the CA Natinoal Guard and was wounded in Bosnia and Iraq, here are a few things that are not being reported:

This person had "volunteered" to go over to Iraq 3 times. Why, while in a combat zone you are tax free and get hazardous duty pay. He was a 15 year soldier, at the rank of Sgt (E5). That tells you that he had not been promoted since if you have spent that much time in the military you should at least be an E6 or E7. He was approaching what is called "High Year Tenure" where if you don't make promotion, you will not be able to ride out your time to make it to 20 and retire. He worked in a rear area. True, being in Iraq sucks, but he was much safer than a combat engineer going out and diffusing bombs or on patrol. If this had been any place else in America, this would be just another "work place shooting" by a disgruntled employee. Not making light of those situations, but that is what it would be.

This soldier had a slew of problems inside of him, and he just snapped at the wrong time and wrong place. If he were back in the States, with the information that I have laid out, he probably would have snapped here, and just did a "murder/suicide" with his family. This is sad, but in no way can those who say it is all "Bush's" fault blame him. Yeah the war is wrong, but "W" had nothing to do with this.

Ask yourself this; if as some say the U.S. is taking in criminals more and more in its ranks, then why is it that a 15 year veteran can't make rank any higher? So it is not that more people with prior crimes are allowed in, it probably has something to do with their own internal wiring.

Sgt John M Russell should not have been in his third tour of duty in Iraq. < :-)

Sgt John M Russell should not have been in his third tour of duty in Iraq. < :-)

adaydream, you may find it hard to believe, but most people in the military don't mind going to Iraq if they are going to be in the rear like he was and they had no chance of actually being a "trigger puller" and out on patrol or in convoys. For the reasons stated, it is an area of "tax free" money and hazardous duty pay. I have seen guys plan their reenlistments until they get in a war zone (for the Navy it is just being in the Persian Gulf) so that the bonus they get is all tax free. I have also know people who were probably in this guys position, knew that they were going to be getting out one way or another coming up, and make as many trips over there as possible to get the tax free money. I pay on average about $12,000/year in Fed taxes alone. If I were in a place like that, that would be a nice bonus for a few years.

I hate to say it, but war makes profits not only for big business but the little guy as well.

Talking about tours of duty in combat areas, etc., in certain areas of the military not serving in combat can actually harm your career. I will give you a brief summary of my own experiences. I fully intended to be a lifer in the army (and would still be in if not for a helicopter accident). When I joined up (as a cadet) my prime motivation was to end up as an infantry officer (some people might call me stupid). I was young, aggressive and wanted to test myself to the limit (and beyond). Anyway, through luck I got a taste of combat rather early in my career in a number of low profile incidents in various parts of the world. Just being able to experience this (and not fxck up) put me ahead of my classmates who didn't get the same opportunities. For a young officer, beating out your classmates on the promotions list is the be all and end all. Furthermore, having had such experiences opened up prime postings as I continued with my career, these included a 2 year exchange to the US and some other interesting jobs.

At the same time, however, I question why it is necessary for members of the US army to serve multiple tours of Afghanistan and Iraq (I especially feel sorry for the national guard crowd). My feelings are that these people signed up to defend their country and not occupy a foreign country indefinately. What about their families back in the US? Former colleagues (upper mid-level career officers in the US Army who I met while on exchange) have told me horror stories of the lives confronting service families back in the US. I dont really think that these people (the servicemen overseas) signed up for this shxt. Something has to be done to rectify this problem or incidents like this shooting are bound to happen again and again.

Doesn't mean that he should do more duty in Iraq, just because you want to.

Almost justifies the war in Iraq, bush wanted to so he did. < :-)

Alphaape: Great first post. It seems pretty obvious the guy had some 'internal wiring' problems, but you cannot remove the war and circumstances from the equation, and therefore can only tenuously suggest the guy 'would have committed mass murder' at home (family shooting or what have you). You are right in that there are people who will snap in different situations, but there is usually a catalyst which pushes them over the top, and in this man's case there were a few, and all were related to the war.

bushlover: "kinda makes ya wonder eh smith. Either you got your nose buried or you are one of the ones accusing others of 'inflammatory comments' but tend to leave your own up."

I rarely accuse others of inflammatory posts, but when I do (I usually call it simply 'trolling') it is beacuse they are just that -- inflammatory and with nothing to say and no point except to anger others. I said full out preceding the latter part of my comment that it would anger some, but that's not because the post is inflammatory, rather it's because the topic of 9/11 is a very sensitive one and many take the slightest mention of it with insult, regardless of the context. What's more, my comment had more than one point, and the point I was making with the comparison to 9/11 and suicide bombers, etc., is that everyone is perfectly entitled to 'judge' this man, since he is guilty of committing the act in question, and that if it were the case of the aforementioned terrorist attack or suicide bombings in general people would be much quicker to judge.

"Hey maybe you can give us a paragraph or two or three about how this is all Bush's fault"

Hey, you said it, not me. I happen to disagree with you on that -- the WAR is certainly bush's fault, and put the soldiers there. But I don't directly blame bush for this man's actions. I'm sorry you do.

Anyway, sorry it's hard for you to see that. I do, of course, realize that you never actually contributed to the thread, but you're taking your time and learning from the others on here. Keep it up -- you will someday contribute something valuable.

and in this man's case there were a few, and all were related to the war.

smith: I think the jury is still out on that one. We don't know what he was facing back at home that may have pushed him over. I agree probably being away from home with problems back there can be trying at times, but I just don't think that it was all the war's fault. I will agree that it may have been a factor, but I put to you once we find out what was it that was eating at this guy, and if it comes out to be home issues, wheter he was in Iraq, or deployed to Ft. Irwin for exercises he probably would have snapped. But let's wait and see.

But no matter what, whether it was from home or war, this is tragic with the loss of life of innocents.

Alphaape: "But no matter what, whether it was from home or war, this is tragic with the loss of life of innocents."

Agreed on that point.

smithinjapan: Alphaape: Great first post.

I have to concur with that. It really hit a lot of points most of us could not have figured out on our own.

timorborder

I definitely enjoy hearing your point of view. It provides real insight. Your posts are a welcome addition to a thread like this. It is something JT should absolutely cherish; getting first hand knowledge. I feel bad for the families of those shot as well as the victims themselves.

I of course cannot speculate on this case because I do not know the facts; I probably never will. However, I have no problem stating that if an individual (military personnel) is in need of immediate mental care and is not properly assessed then a portion of the blame is systemic. That means that actions from improper care place a portion of the guilt on the military and in the end the U.S. government. Individuals cannot help it if they become mentally ill. It is then their responsibility to seek help. The burden then falls on him or her being honest about their conditions and if they have done their best then the rest of the responsibility is on the government. Detain someone who would hurt their self or others. But it is most important to provide immediate care.

I was in the Air Force but there is no way I could handle 3 tours of duty in a war zone at this time in my life. The stress would break me. I feel compassion for all those serving extended commitments but especially for those who do so involuntarily. We had laws that served as commitments to our military personnel and we changed those laws. I call that breaking a promise to those who initially received a different commitment than the new laws provided for. Furthermore I consider it irresponsible. If the cause is just we will have plenty of volunteers. The fact that we could not sustain proper rest periods and maintain a limited number of tours unless overridden by individual choice speaks volumes about the number of people who feel it is just and are willing to volunteer. It is my opinion we would have continued to have sufficient personnel to maintain action in Afghanistan, until we properly resolved that conflict, if action would have been limited to those responsible for attacking the U.S. and related terrorists or insurgents; whether state sponsored or outside political forces.

How could we treat our human resources like other procured assets? Our missions need to include valuing the men and women that are fighting as well as those they are fighting for. I still believe in actions in non-strategic missions; but only with a wide diversity of coalition forces. If we cannot get a wide diversity of coalition forces then I do not believe we should be engaged in non-strategic missions. That still leaves the possibility of engagement in Afghanistan with or without coalition support. We were attacked and I consider that a strategic mission.

When we forget our personnel are not just resources but human beings then we can expect that we will end up with a certain percentage of animal behavior to be an unintended consequence. I have been concerned about the stress our personnel have had to endure for quite some time. I view it as a separate issue than the justification of the war. Humanity demands that we respect those who fight to protect us.

Again my sympathy to the victims and their families.

[Keep it up -- you will someday contribute something valuable.]

Oh I come here to learn from the best of the know it alls. Thanks for lettin us know how it all is.

Why the big focus on whether he was unbalanced? Surely EVERY murderer is mentally unbalanced, whether permanently or just for a few seconds. If this guy doesn't get the death penalty then neither shoudl anyone else.

Timorborder,

Some officials believe soldiers are reluctant to take advantage of the facilities because of the stigma attached to counseling in a military culture that promotes mental and physical toughness.

This is a key issue in all this. As somebody who has served in the military and who saw my fair share of combat, I can tell you that the emphasis on being tough gets stronger and stronger the closer you get to the front line. Moreover, individuals who cannot hack it in a combat unit are sometimes very reticent to come forward and seek help because of the strong underlying code of not deserting your fellow soldiers

You are absolutely right. However, the good news is, the Army is working VERY hard to change that paradigm.

Advances in medicine have allowed doctors to realize that TBI (traumatic brain injury) is a far bigger player than originally thought. Service members that would have been treated for depression and/or PTSD are now being screened for TBI and the advances that are being made are allowing doctors to remap parts of the brain so that brain functions that were once hindered because they ran through an injured part of the brain can now be re-routed, allowing for a better chance of recovery.

Anyway, the "Cowboy up" mentality, although certainly still very evident, is starting to go away.

Taka

"these people signed up to defend their country and not occupy a foreign country indefinitely"

These people signed up to obey orders, and by golly they're going to obey their orders, even if those orders are to serve a third tour in Iraq or Afghanistan. Serving in Iraq or Afghanistan is, by the way, defending our country. Didn't you know that?

Please Sarge

Serving in Iraq or Afghanistan is, by the way, defending our country. Didn't you know that?

Serving in Iraq has nothing to do with protecting this country. Iraq never had anything to do with protecting this country.

This country went into Iraq with an agenda to make george bush a war president. It did that. It also turned into a complete disaster for the United States, especially after there weren't any WMD, the reason for his attack.

Then it was determined that we never had enough troops to successfully do the task without over stretching the military, so it's 2, 3 and 4 tours of duty in a combat zone.

Sure it's their duty to do as ordered and the men and women have displayed courage that most posters here who post on JT have never been required to fulfill.

Numerous tours in Iraq and Afghanistan are killing our troops. Not the enemies bullets, ours.

Yeah Sarge they signed up to protect their country. But, there are limits to what they can do. < :-)

Please, adaydream - How could you have served in the military and not know that serving in Iraq, fighting the scumbags who would torture and kill you or me without hesitation or remorse, is indeed protecting this country?

Sarge, Iraq did nothing against this country. They didn't attack us.

Based on your assertion, why didn't we attack Saudi Arabia? The terrorists who attacked us came from SA, not Iraq.

But our troops are serving numerous tours in a country that did not make an aggressive act against us. < :-)

I heard on the news that 12% have mental/emotional problems after an initial tour in Iraq or Afghanistan. That number jumps to 27% after the third tour. That is a 156% increase or 2.25 times the initial rate. Sorry they did not provide a number for serving two tours. It is kind of clumsy providing the jump without an intermediate increased percentage.

Sarge said:

These people signed up to obey orders, and by golly they're going to obey their orders, even if those orders are to serve a third tour in Iraq or Afghanistan.

Sarge, that might carry some weight if you had been the one serving three tours. Talk is cheap. As for me I will be ignoring your comments and listening to those with extensive combat experience. They also appear to be intelligent, independent thinkers.

Donkey - If 27% have mental/emotional problems ater a third tour in Iraq or Afghanistan, why is President Obama keeping our soldiers in Iraq for another couple of years and escalating our involvement in Afganistan? Is he just being cruel?

"I will be ignoring your comments and listening to those with extensive combat experience"

How about that soldier who lost his leg in Iraq and supported McCain and Palin?

Sarge said: why is President Obama keeping our soldiers in Iraq for another couple of years and escalating our involvement in Afganistan [Afghanistan]? Is he just being cruel?

I hope he can rectify the situation. I will be watching. I don't have to agree with every thing he does to approve of his presidency. I do not want soldiers being forced to stay on past their enlistment period. I do not want soldiers serving three tours of duty without their consent. I expect Obama to correct this harsh treatment of our valuable personnel. The correct executive decision was to never enter Iraq. Even if it was justified (which it was not) it was not an eminent danger and we should have completely stabilized Afghanistan first! Are you telling me that you are proud of Bush's and the Republicans success in Afghanistan? I know for a fact that if we had put the 100,000 troops in Afghanistan that are now located in Iraq we would have a level of success that is unfathomably greater, by a factor not just a greater percentage, than we are experiencing today. If you are correct in saying that Iraq was justified, and I do continue to disagree with you on that, but even if you were correct the timing was wrong and has led to many unnecessary failures that diminish the overall war effort. The Neo-Con strategy was idiotic and our soldiers are paying the price. Obama must now make decisions based on the truth of the situation at hand. I think he has to continue the policy for the time being to get the best outcome possible from a terrible mistake by our government through the actions of the Republicans. I hope he can provide relief as soon as possible to our troops and begin practicing a more responsible policy for rotating our troops (length of tour), number of tours and forced service beyond the terms of the enlistment the military personnel agreed to. Bush screwed up all three of those things. Shame. Obama must continue to seek the best solutions for manning the effort as we back out of Iraq and increase the effort in Afghanistan.

I can't believe I have to say this one more time. Nobody in Iraq was responsible for the terrorist acts committed in the U.S. on 09.11.2001. The Neo-Con's efforts failed to deliver Ossama bin Laden as promised. The New-Con's efforts failed to stabilize Afghanistan sufficiently, which surely could have been all but completed by now with an additional 100,000 troops at the commanders disposal.

We should have completed the task of getting the terrorists responsible for the act on American soil. NO DIVERSIONS!

Sarge forced my hand, I had no intention of mentioning, explicitly, the underlying facts which cause Obama to continue the terrible practices of screwing our military personnel, for the short term, to protect our country's security. I had not intention of railing against Bush; I want to let go of the past. I have no problem letting Bush enjoy his retirement. So, emphatically no, Obama is not being cruel! Bush was cruel and has forced Obama's hand in the interest of national security. It is a damn shame but so are the the trillions of dollars we must spend to correct the errors of the Republicans.

It is very costly to fix the massive dammage the Republicans have done in America; both in human costs and monetary costs.

As far as the soldier who lost his leg in Iraq that supported the Republican executive choices; there were such examples supporting both sets of candidates. Are we to add them up in two columns to decide the presidency? That was a ludicrous question that does not deserve entertaining a serious response.