Serious Question

I normally reserve Saturday posts for something a little less significant. You know, some humor, something less important, Saturday morning lite, that sort of thing. Not as many readers and likely those that are reading aren't as interested in thinking as hard on a Saturday. Well, this one isn't humorous and isn't as light. It's a serious question. I'm doing it on Saturday because 1) I'm not sure that I can get real answers (not for lack of trying, but because I'm not sure any of us have real answers) and 2) I'm not sure that getting real answers to this question will change anything. So, I ask a serious question and I'd like to see if anyone can suggest reasons and that's about it.

I was watching TV for a moment the other day and saw a commercial about a group trying to help veterans of Afghanistan and Iraq who return with PTSD and commit suicide. Very sad. In 2013 CNN reported that more than 22 veterans a day were committing suicide. This year the Huffington Post wrote that the rate wasn't likely accurate; it was much higher. Congress is seeking to pass a bill to lower suicide rates among veterans because it's considered an epidemic. Suicides among veterans, they say, are triple the rate of suicides among the civilian population. According to Business Insider, 1892 U.S. veterans took their own lives in 2014 alone. In 2012 more veterans took their own lives than soldiers who were lost in actual combat.

This is tragic, and it made me wonder. What about other veterans? Turns out that Vietnam vets had similar problems. Of course, they have been around longer, giving them more time to accumulate numbers, but their age group is among the highest in suicide rates. Before that? Not so much. Neither World War II nor the Korean Conflict produced anything like this phenomenon among returning veterans. Suicides in both were around a 10-11 per 100,000 rate. Much, much lower than modern soldiers. So there's my question. Why? Why are veterans of recent conflicts more susceptible to suicide than those of earlier wars? What has changed?

I've tried to come up with my own answers. Guesses, really. Is it in the veterans themselves? I think there are differences between the soldier of 1940 and the soldier of 2014 that are significant. The earlier generation was of a different mindset, a different culture, a different society. They came out of a Great Depression era where the country was trying to pull itself out of its collapse and they went to a "We've been attacked" place after Pearl Harbor where they pulled themselves together to defend their friends and families. They were used to having less and sacrificing more. Modern troops are a different breed. We've encouraged self-esteem and a higher sense of self-interest in the modern kids. They have much more and sacrifice (typically) much less. They have a stronger sense of personal entitlement. Even among the American poor they have computers and smartphones and televisions, more than previous generations had. And we've encouraged a "do what feels good" mentality, a "me" generation. You can see it in the proliferation of commercials offering lawsuits for every possible thing that might go wrong. "Don't let a DUI ruin your life," one law firm's ad says without suggesting that "Don't drink and drive" would be a good alternative. This society tends to be less responsible, less "adult". In 2003 CBS did a piece that suggested that "most think adulthood begins at age 26." More are living at home after 18. Fewer are married before 30. It's a different generation than the 40's and 50's.

Maybe it is in the ease of life we enjoy. The first half of the 20th century in America saw some tough times. People who endure tough times in an ongoing way will likely find it easier to manage in other tough times. People who have endured trauma learn to endure trauma. But our current climate is pretty much at ease. Not a whole lot of need for traumatic coping skills. Maybe that's where it lies.

I've heard that the primary reason is what they term "survivor guilt". You know, "Why did I make it when so many around me didn't?" It's a popular answer, but I wonder. I mean, earlier vets had the same problem, but it didn't up their suicide rates. Could it be that they saw a greater purpose in their efforts which gave some sense of meaning to the losses while today's troops have had their sense of purpose, both in war and in life, wrenched from beneath them?

Maybe it's society. In the 1940's we sent our boys to fight off the Germans and the Japanese, the Axis of Evil. They were heroes, defending our shores and fighting oppression. They saved us and they saved the world. Welcome back, boys! We are so proud of you! In the 1950's they went again to stave off oppression. They fought against the evil of Communism that threatened South Korea and, by extension, all of us. Both of these fought heroic wars for high purposes and were well-received by their people. Vietnam was a different story. They returned as "baby killers" fighting to defend a people their society couldn't care less about without the support they needed. And it has been thus since. We had a sense of the Pearl Harbor mentality after 9/11, but it didn't last very long. It wasn't very long before America had once again turned against defending America or even other people (like the Afghans or the Iraqis) if it took any real effort or incurred any real cost. So these men and women risked much and returned with little thanks or support. No, not as bad as the Vietnam vets saw, but not nearly the warm embrace that World War II veterans enjoyed. Maybe it's a problem with society.

Maybe it's elsewhere. Or everywhere. A combination. Other factors. I'm just wondering, because it's sad to see so many suffering so much. Like I said, I don't know if there are actual answers and I don't know if getting the answer would fix anything. I just wonder.