Ft. Hood Shooter Didn't See Combat, But that won't stop the Blame Bush/PTSD meme

Jawa Report ^ | 4/3/2014 | Rusty Shackleford, Ph.D

[markomalley]

So, you have PTSD -- or you think you do -- and yet you didn't see any combat?

The soldier who shot three people to death at Fort Hood apparently did not see combat during a tour in Iraq three years ago but was clearly troubled, under treatment for depression and anxiety and being evaluated for post-traumatic stress disorder...

There is no record that Lopez saw combat or was injured during a four-month deployment in 2011 to Iraq, where he was a truck driver, military officials said. At that time, American forces were withdrawing from Iraq.

Records show no combat citations or ribbons, the officials said. They stressed that it did not mean Lopez was not suffering serious psychological problems — only that they did not appear combat-related, as is often associated with soldiers suffering from PTSD.

They said there was also no medical confirmation the Lopez suffered a traumatic brain injury. Milley said that the soldier “self-reported” a brain injury.

I see Drudge has a headline up noting that the guy was taking Ambien because he wasn't sleeping well.

Why is it that when a guy is crazy that we always try to blame it on something? Combat stress. Brain injury. Ambien. His mother died.

Aren't most people who are crazy just, you know, crazy? Like they were born that way. That it's something in the brain.

My impression from the Ph.Ds in Psychology I work with is that pretty much most of the psychological theories stemming from Freud and those that followed his lead in tying psychological disorders to life experiences or events have pretty much fallen out of favor. Yet in the popular mind & media we try to create a causal string of traumatic life events to psychological disorders.

But, what do I know? I'm: a) not a psychologist; b) never been in the military.

So, I'll link you over to this at a great milblogger over at This Aint Hell:

Yesterday, thousands of veterans suffering from PTS didn’t shoot anyone...

Well, we know that people who do have PTS don’t normally hurt other people, they hurt themselves, but not the rest of us. So it’s unfair of Milley and the media to check off the PTS box as the cause for this incident.

And this followup:

As I’ve been saying all along, PTS has become an excuse for bad behavior, but on closer examination, something the media is largely unequipped to accept, that’s all it is – an excuse. An excuse largely accepted by the social engineers and our intellectual betters who have all of the answers and none of the experience.

Sounds about right to me.

Still, this is going to be laid to blame on Bush. Somehow.

Also, note that Ivan Lopez is a "white Hispanic". They say he's from Puerto Rico, which is a suburb of Peruvia. I think.

Oh, one other thing. The right-wing equivalent of the Blame Bush meme is that this is somehow Obama's fault for not allowing guns on military bases. I agree that it makes absolutely zero sense to not allow soldiers to carry weapons on bases. Of all the people in the world most trustworthy as a group to carry guns, those that serve in uniform are them.

So, I'm tempted to blame Obama fort this too. The only problem? Apparently the no guns rule goes way back to 1992 -- when George H.W. Bush was President. And was implemented in 1993, when Bill Clinton was President. (sorry, no link for this, but I read it somewhere last night but forgot to save the link)

Whenever an insane person murders someone it is tempting to blame larger forces. But in the end the only person to blame is Ivan Lopez. And thank God, he's dead.

UPDATE: I just talked to one of the Psychology professors and he pretty much verified what I wrote above. One thing he mentioned that I thought worth passing on was that he says that the current thinking is that traumatic or stressful events can affect the mind, but that such stresses have to be prolonged in order for any lasting damage. Single events don't cause psychological damage, but prolonged exposure might.

Also, he tells me that in his opinion Ivan Lopez, "is an Assh*le." That's a clinical diagnosis.

[bootless]

It was indeed Bush 41. Some radio hosts thought it was Clinton, but the Blaze confirmed it was during Bush 41’s term. But Clinton didn’t do anything about it, nor did 43 (and they should have). No surprise Skippy wouldn’t.

[re_nortex]

The NPR-media are going GA-GA with coverage on this, because this can conceivably be laid at the feet of Big Pharm.

It's interesting that the state-run lamestream media preface corporations with the adjective "Big" which they use as a pejorative. Their lexicon is filled with terminology such as "Big Phama", "Big Oil" and "Big Tobacco", all of which contribute to American prosperity and the good life with desirable products and services.

One term the left-dominated media avoid is the one most apt: "Big Labor". Unionism destroys American prosperity and has caused countless corporations to die.

[bootless]

PS - I do, of course, agree with you about 41 & 43’s respect for the military - and vice versa. That is evident.

[Lurkina.n.Learnin]

And don’t forget the Holy Grail “Big Government”.

[re_nortex]

Thanks much but I'm still trying to square that with this piece from the Washington Times (a reputable source in my opinion) of November 11, 2009 which squarely places the blame on Klansman Klintoon:

Among President Clinton’s first acts upon taking office in 1993 was to disarm U.S. soldiers on military bases. In March 1993, the Army imposed regulations forbidding military personnel from carrying their personal firearms and making it almost impossible for commanders to issue firearms to soldiers in the U.S. for personal protection. For the most part, only military police regularly carry firearms on base, and their presence is stretched thin by high demand for MPs in war zones.

Because of Mr. Clinton, terrorists would face more return fire if they attacked a Texas Wal-Mart than the gunman faced at Fort Hood, home of the heavily armed and feared 1st Cavalry Division. That’s why a civilian policewoman from off base was the one whose marksmanship ended Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan’s rampage.

[43north]

I treat vets in my medical practice. There are many who have been in combat and have “seen the elephant”. Some of them rightfully claim PTSD, others isolate those memories in an unused part of their brain and keep them there even though they experienced events that have given them PTSD and they function normally in life.

Others were losers before they went in the military and are STILL losers but now they believe they have an excuse even if they never experienced combat. I’ve seen individuals who were granted service-connected disabilities for PTSD and they NEVER left CONUS during their service. That pis$$es me off. I’ve directly cared for people who sustained horrible trauma in my medical career but I put those experiences away and keep going. I was covered in blood and gore but nobody was shooting at me. I have nothing but respect for vets who have been in actual combat.

This Ivan guy was definitely troubled but it is unlikely that he really had PTSD. That won’t stop the libtards from claiming that he did.

[hinckley buzzard]

I have done literally hundreds of PTSD evaluations for treatment and/or disability, for the VA. I was a member of the DSM-III-R PTSD subcommittee refining the diagnosis back in 1989. A few things: Serving in a combat zone, where one attempts to function in a condition of fear for his life, is a risk factor for traumatic stress disorder. There ordinarily will be a particular event that triggers a process of traumatization.

This could happen to a truck driver who, say, saw a lot of convoy duty, especially at night, as was typically the norm in Iraq. He may not have come under direct enemy fire, but the threat of hitting an IED or seeing a vehicle ahead of him hit, especially with casualties, may precipitate a traumatic stress reaction.

No, the "professor" is wrong, if he is saying there has to be prolonged exposure to extreme stress in order for a PTSD to develop. There does not. Prolonged exposure is not by itself a criterion for a traumatic event. It is a risk factor, but neither a necessary nor sufficient proximal cause. The traumatic event can be of short duration, and typically is.

That having been said, there is not enough openly known about this particular soldier for anyone, no matter how much "expertise" he claims, to make a judgment about the troop's mental status at the time of the shooting. Maybe that information will come out. Maybe not. Time will tell.

[WilliamofCarmichael]

There is no debate — the question is settled 97 percent of MSM employees are skid marks on Journalism’s shorts.

[Intolerant in NJ]

But, what do I know? I'm: a) not a psychologist; b) never been in the military...I am and I was - both prolonged exposure to stressful events and individual severe stressful incidents can lead to psychological damage - and sometimes prolonged stress can make one more vulnerable to the effects of individual incidents - we don't know anywhere near enough about his man's background to have a clear picture of what was going on in his head - but I do note that after nine years in the military he was at the rank of E-4, not nearly what he should have attained after that much time in service - whether he was never promoted or was promoted and busted a time or two, it indicates to me that his troubles have been going on for some time.....

[SWAMPSNIPER]

I’ve experienced a lot of stress and trauma over the past 71 years but Daddy always told me “no one wants to hear your damned excuses, be a man”.