Shocking suicide toll on combat veterans
Tories demand better mental health care for troops returning from front
Britain faces a "ticking timebomb" of mental illness and suicide among young Army veterans who return from hand-to-hand combat in Afghanistan, the Conservatives will warn today.
A lack of mental health care for veterans, combined with the stress of fighting the Taliban, will mean many survivors of the conflict pay a heavy price in psychological problems and self harm, according to David Cameron and the shadow Defence Secretary Liam Fox.
As the bodies of eight soldiers – including three teenagers – killed in a bloody 24 hours in Helmand were repatriated yesterday, mental health experts joined the politicians in warning that not enough was being done to care for returning members of the armed forces.
Research suggests that veterans aged 18 to 23 are up to three times more likely to commit suicide than their civilian counterparts. Setting out plans today to boost mental health care for returning troops, Mr Fox and Mr Cameron will argue that more veterans of the Falklands campaign and the first Gulf War killed themselves after quitting the forces than died in action.
An estimated 264 Falklands veterans have committed suicide since the conflict ended, compared with 255 soldiers killed in action, according to an ex-servicemen's organisation.
Twenty-four British soldiers died during the 1991 Gulf War, but the Ministry of Defence disclosed last year that 169 veterans of the conflict had died from "intentional self-harm" or in circumstances that led to open verdicts at inquests.
Mr Fox told The Independent: "The suicide figures for past conflicts are deeply concerning. I worry that with the intensity of current operations in Afghanistan we are building up a timebomb of mental health problems."
David Hill, director of operations for the charity Combat Stress, said it took an average of 14 years for veterans to ask for help with post-traumatic stress disorder. Many suffered in silence – often harbouring suicidal thoughts – because they were reluctant to admit to their vulnerability.
Mr Hill said: "Servicemen and women are exposed to stresses that most people won't be exposed to in their lives. In Afghanistan, they are exposed to them quite early in their careers. There is a general lack of understanding about how intense these stresses can be."
A study by Manchester University this year found that ex-servicemen under 24 were between two and three times more likely to kill themselves than men of the same age from outside the forces.
Researchers suggested three possible reasons: that they were already more vulnerable to suicide before joining up; that they had trouble re-adapting to civilian life; or that they were affected by "exposure to adverse experiences".
Professor Nav Kapur, one of the report's authors, warned: "Young men leaving the armed forces appear to be at a higher risk. That needs to be recognised and action taken."
Kevan Jones, the Veterans minister, said: "We have made great progress both in the treatment of mental health problems and in reducing the stigma associated with seeking help. I'm working with the NHS to make sure GPs are telling veterans about the support available, such as the six community mental health schemes we have set up specifically tailored for veterans."
The Cabinet discussed the growing bloodshed in Afghanistan as the political controversy over the Government's tactics intensified. Fifteen UK soldiers were killed in a 10-day spell last week, bringing the number of deaths since 2001 to 184. Downing Street insisted yesterday that the Army was "making progress" in its attacks on Taliban positions in Helmand, but acknowledged British troops were facing a "critical period".
A spokesman for Gordon Brown said: "The clear view coming out of Cabinet was that we do have the right approach in Afghanistan." He denied Mr Brown had chosen the cheapest option for reinforcing the British forces by sending 700 extra troops rather than the 2,000 requested by military chiefs.
The head of the British Army disclosed yesterday that the military will review strategy in the light of the recent surge in deaths. General Sir Richard Dannatt said: "We have got to think through the way we operate, the resources we have got, the numbers... to make sure we have given ourselves the absolute best chance of succeeding."
Senior officers will analyse details from the latest combat in Helmand to ascertain what lessons can be learned. In particular they will examine how the Taliban are honing their use of roadside bombs and mines.
Stressing that withdrawal was not an option, General Dannatt said: "This mission is really important. If we were to pull out unilaterally, just come out of the mission... frankly, the consequences will be catastrophic."
Meanwhile 140 extra troops from the 2nd Battalion Princess of Wales's Royal Regiment, currently based in Cyprus, are being deployed to Afghanistan to assist with the offensive against the Taliban in Helmand, codenamed Operation Panther's Claw.
What are the other members of Nato doing to help us?
Q. Why have there been such levels of recrimination over British troop numbers in Afghanistan? What is the situation now?
A. The UK deployment of about 4,000 troops to Afghanistan in 2006 took place against the background of a major commitment in Iraq. Commanders were concerned about "overstretch" and fighting on two fronts. Since then, the force in Afghanistan has reached 9,100 troops. When the UK began withdrawing from southern Iraq, the US wanted some forces diverted to Afghanistan. Senior British officers wanted 2,000 to 2,500 more troops sent to Helmand. A troop shortage meant ground won from the Taliban could not be held and it was felt that with up to 22,000 US troops heading to the country's south, including to Helmand, the British had to raise their numbers to maintain credibility. Gordon Brown opted for the lowest commitment option: a temporary deployment of 700 for the Afghan elections. The decision sparked controversy and will be reviewed after the autumn election. It is expected the 700 will become permanent and an additional force sent.
Q. What has been the British strategy in Afghanistan since 2006?
A. John Reid, the then defence secretary, said he hoped the mission would end "without a shot being fired in anger". Since then, about six million rounds are thought to have been fired. From the start of the mission, UK policy seemed confused and drifting. The official mission statement was that troops would help bring governance to a traditionally lawless part of the country and assist in poppy eradication. But they charged off to outlying areas and set up platoon houses, in effect inviting Taliban attacks. The operation ran counter to a plan by General (now Sir) David Richards, the British commander of Nato forces, which called for secure areas to be set up around larger towns, where reconstruction could begin. Instead, swaths of Helmand turned into battlefields, and there was little development.
Q. Gordon Brown has asked for more Afghan government troops to be based in Helmand. Why? And how effective will this be?
A. Nato's aim is for Afghans to provide their own security but it will be a while before they can. Mr Brown has said the Afghan forces should hold ground which British forces cannot, effectively acknowledging there are not enough British forces on the ground. About 11 per cent of the 85,000-strong Afghan army are in Helmand, which has seen almost half of recent fighting. But much of the Afghan force is still training. The plan is to expand the Afghan forces to 134,000. But even that number would seem unlikely to be able to meet a Taliban emergency which is recruiting international jihadists and is supported by elements in the Pakistani military and intelligence. Iraq, with a similar population, has about 600,000 in its force.
Q. What about contributions from other Nato countries?
A. No less than 42 countries contribute to the International Security Assistance Force. But many contingents, including some from Nato countries, operate under caveats which restrict what they are allowed to do, rendering them virtually ineffective in combat scenarios. The UK and US have demanded that other Western states should do more. The Canadians have the worst fatality rate, losing 126 personnel from a force of 2,800. The British have lost 185 out of 9,000 and the Americans, 723 from 60,000. The deadliest attack was on a French unit last August; 10 soldiers died in an engagement 40 miles from Kabul.
Kim Sengupta
View all comments that have been posted about this article.
Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.
- Print Article
- Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2009 Independent News and Media Limited



Comments
One might also reflect that nobody ever asks what kind of conflict and post-conflict stress is experienced by our enemy: It would surely also be instructive to find out what effect they experience, and to compare it with that of our own forces.
That's interesting. I wonder, though, what the incidence of self-harming and suicide was among those soldiers post-conflict. I now know only two living veterans: a Para who was dropped into Normandy one minute after midnight on D-Day, and an infantryman who served in Cyprus and was also among those sent in at Suez.
The Para, despite seeing and hearing terrible things in Normandy, getting wounded within two days, recuperating and subsequently being dropped in on the Rhine operation, then after the war also experiencing some pretty bad things in Indonesia, where the British were stationed pre-independence, has never self-harmed, never contemplated suicide, and never referred to or showed any signs of post-traumatic stress disorder.
The infantryman strongly supported what Britain did in Cyprus and Suez, he also saw some traumatic scenes, but never showed any PTSD and is a strong supporter of the National Front (no, I'm not NF, as I've stated in previous posts on other threads).
Of course, a couple of examples don't prove anyth8ing about the full picture. But I do sometimes wonder if diferrent outlooks in a different age have anything to do with the overall incidences of PTSD. No matter what their outlook, nothing could save many troops in WW1 from what was then called 'shell shock'. Being subjected to endless bombardment while stuck in trenches, together with all the other stresses of their situation, clearly led to PTSD for many survivors after the war. However, how many of them self-harmed and committed suicide? I'm pretty sure the overall percentage would have been lower than it has been for our veterans from the Falklands War onwards.
Going back further, how many veterans of, say, the Battle of Waterloo, or of the Crimean War, were subject to PTSD, self-harmed and/or committed suicide? It really would be instructive to make some effort to establish comparisons.
It is a well known fact that the after care of servicemen and women leaves much to be desired. Hence the amount of young people ex forces who live and sleep on the streets. Sadly as each soldier dies there is the usual litany of words of how his or her potential was lost. But this means not much to the lousy politicians who sent them on these impossible missions. Perhaps if these politicians were to to have to fight themselves or donate their own loved ones they'd be more caring. Alas that is not the case. Fine words mean nothing to those struggling with what they've had to witness the same applies of course to those who face tough challenges such as the fire service. The government cannot hide the death rate of service folk but they do hide the details of those who are wounded in body and in mind, this is a scandal. They're probably very frightened of any possible litigation they care more about this and their precious ego than the health of those who have suffered and will continue to suffer until they die.
What goes on in the human mind is hard to fathom all that can be done is devote time to try and help heal the mental wounds. There are tens of thousands suffering with PTSD and many will never be treated hence the high suicide rate and other actions that are made by sufferers. In our day we had to accept it and keep a stiff upper lip. That doesn't make us any better, I feel sorry for those who are suffering in silence unable to break out from their tortured minds and then seeking relief by ending it all. It's high time that this is now being put into a spotlight but I regret that with all things it will just end up a statistic.
Beginning to wonder if there isn't something apocryphal about the story.
Doubtless you have some proof that you are as tough as the British soldiers you say (without any evidence) 'cry like babies'.
( http://www.va.gov/ ). Even though a lot of issues revolve around the concept of pay for medical aid or get free medical treatment from the VA, other issues stand out. I believe that their combat veterans receive means tested aid for 5 years for non-military illness, and (I think) unlimited aid for military related injury and illness. And currently, veterans' groups are urging Congress to "pass the Compensation Owed for Mental Health Based on Activities in Theater Post-traumatic Stress Disorder Act of 2009 (the COMBAT PTSD Act, H.R. 952)" to make clarification easier:
( http://www.vetsfirst.org/vetsfirst-tell
In the past, UK troups could well have been treated at one of a handful of military hospitals that had the necessary expertise. WIth these gone, I guess that our UK veterans are told to shuffle off down to Accident and Emergency and hope that somebody understands, unless they manage to get a physiatric referral from their GP. Therefore, I can only guess that the high levels of potential "mental illness and suicide" in the UK is related to the military man's Psyche is based around training to cope with anything, and being unable and unwilling to say the words "I can't cope". In contrast, a US combat veteran returning home, should at least be able to knock on the door of the VA as a mere military act, and say "help!".
I'm sure that many UK troops suffered terrible problems following WWI, WWII, The Falklands onwards, and were not given the help they needed which may have destroyed their quality of life or even destroyed their life itself.
Whilst our Defence Secretary (at the time) Geoff Hoon couldn't understand why he shouldn't go off on a skiing break with his kids at the same time that our troops prepared to enter Iraq, how could we ever doubt that our 'caring' government would ever give us anything less than a Rolls Royce, gold plated care system? Perhaps now, we should really start to think about how we care for combat veterans.
You don't want to die for the bankers? There must be something wrong with you.
http://warisaracket.org/