warriorhood

I have a new book that I bought. It is called "An Operators Manual for PTSD". The foreward is befitting a retired Sergeant Major of the Marine Corps... it is one page, short, and to the point. No dancing around bushes and no setting up elaborate premises. Sgt Maj's are, if anything, direct.

In the foreward, the SMAJ (pronounced "smadge") says that "regardless of conflict, approximately 15% of all combat veterans develeop PTSD". This struck me with a new thought. THE VIEW by many combat vets, or at least those that I've dealt with personally, and indeed the military mindset, is that this 15% are those nonhackers. There is a saying in the Marines... that "there is always that 10%" meaning, there is always that small group of people that aren't up to the standard of being a Marine (and the standards are high).

My question and concern deals with how we are grouping the 15% that develop PTSD with the nonhackers. It is an unspoken assumption that the two categories are of the same population. This is much the same that some right-wing conservatives will assume that the numbers of homosexual and child molestors are tapping into the same population of sexual deviants. (note, I do not, in any way, believe that homosexuality is deviancy. I am expressing a trended belief of many).

Question. Are those that develop PTSD of the same category as those 'non hackers" who cannot live up to the ordeals of being a warrior? I say, most emphatically, NO.

This begs us to define what a warrior is. In Plato's Republic there are the three aspects of the soul as reason, spirit, and desire and their interest being knowledge/honor/pleasures in that order. This gives us the class of philosophers/warriors/commoners. Wisdom is the hallmark of the philospher, temperance that of the commoner (hey people, its about not being so damn crazy in your spending sprees for crap!) and courage is that virtue of the warrior. Justice transcends all.

There is a basic nature of the soul, its main interest, what class works best for it, and the virtues associated with it. For the soul that hungers for reason, it's interest id knowledge and one should become a philosopher and extol wisdom. The soul type best for warriors, or Plato, is Spirit and our main interest is HONOR, our virtue is courage.

What is given lipservice to, at times, is this notion of honor. I happen to think that Plato was on to something here. Honor IS our watchword. It is a guiding theme for the military. We ARE manifestations of honor and we do so against overwhelming odds... enacting our virtue of courage to do so.

So, again, question. Can one be a warrior and not feel what honor is? One can be a fighter... but warrior is a different term. Warrior is sacred, it is a role given by the community. A fighter is an individual that fights for self interest. A warrior does so for his/her community. A warrior is different because of this concept of honor (which brings with it notions of sacrifice and whatnot). Somehow we've gotten mixed up between what a warrior is and what a fighter is and we've confused the two. At grappling combat training the instructor, a referree and trainer for the UFC, told us that the definition of a warrior is "someone willing to get into a fight". This was appealing to the mass of men in those circles that were training to grapple and pummel. Yet I disagree with this. A mother who is defending her children against an attacker is not a warrior. She is fierce, she is strong, she will kick your ass nine ways till sunday, but she is not a warrior. Is she willing to enter that fight? If you have any doubt, go mess with a mother's children. I'll see you in the hospital.

No. A warrior is someone who has tapped into that rage and agression that makes one tear flesh and smash bone, to destroy with all the fury of Ares, and yet, does so within the confines and dictates of honor. Honor is defined different ways in different cultures, and yet among disparate tribes, groups, warriors, clans, armies, there is a notion of what honor is. At times those notions do not recognize each other (The British Army's distaste for the sniping techniques used by Roger's Rangers during the American Revolution, or the British against the Ottoman Army techniques a century later, or by American Infantry against the Mahdi Army techniques in OIF2), but there is some concept of honor.

The smart tactictian will not assume that his enemy will fight by the rules he himself employs, that the dictates of honor he follows is followed by his enemy. This is not a post on tactics. This is one on warriors and PTSD.

What do we, as American veterans, define as honor? There is a deep understanding of this and I believe it is connected to the group of those feel remorse, grief, and guilt over their actions in combat. What I am saying is that those who are more aligned to the concept of warrior are also those who are more likely to develop PTSD because of their deeper connections to what honor is.

The reason for the development of PTSD is, then, not a fault with their own shortcomings as warriors, but instead for the shortcommintgs of the communal environments they find themselves in. We hold within us what is the warrior ideal, but seek to live it within the rules and norms of a society, or culture, or group that says that men and soldiers can only act in very narrow terms. For gods sake, look at the hatred we (the machismo manly culture) have for efeminate males. Men hate homosexual males not because of the male/male sex, but because it is unmanly to be submissive or to act in any manner not deemed manly. Take a man that is heterosexual and give him 'feminine' qualities and he is hated as well. The policy of 'dont ask don't tell' works as long as the homosexual male in question is able to conform to all expectations of domination as befitting a male as required of him.

This is, to me, a very odd state to find ourselves in. How did we get in this spot? The answer is, I fear, very complicated and long in the making.

But back to my point. What if I could find a way to address what a warrior is so that it leaves open a means of communcation of emotional turmoil? What if I found a means of introducing what a warrior is so that one could openly grieve?

I think of the Masaii tribe and how their males do not show any pain at all. A professor told of his going through the ordeal of being ritually burned and his having to show no pain. He raised an eyebrow while they poked a burning stick onto his chest (scarring him). He didn't do great, but he did well and was hence accepted by the Masaii.

There is something to this. For it is a natural response to go into combat and to close of emotions. If you didn't, you'd go mad as you killed and maimed. We want our warriors to be able to go forth and kill. To not do so is to not be a warrior. And what human can kill without remorse? Monsters, as we call them.

And yet here is the crux of what I am saying... what sort of monster (the killing machine without emotion) can feel honor?

Think about that for a second.

The mind is able to heal itself. The brain can change itself. The emotions can evolve and heal themselves. We are resilient beings.

We recruit many men to become warriors. The ads for the Marines are excellent examples. They speak to us on deeper levels, as warriors, to be among warriors. It is why I joined. We go and fight and live as warriors and come back to a civilian life that doesn't understand what a warrior is, the fierce joy in fighting (fightin is always bad they say, war is always evil (what then of those that fight a war?) and fallen warriors are 'wasted' lives). There is no place among the communal table for the sacred warrior to sit. Other venerated roles are there, the teacher, the professor, the firefighter, the policeman (at times, at times not), the farmer, the parent, and others. But the warrior is not there. The warrior is, instead, an ending for the sympathy of the yellow ribbon on the back of your car, he is something to feel sorry for because he wasted his time, lost his buddy for a wasted cause, and is changed forever. Don't talk to him Johnny, just be polite and keep moving. We are, still, outcasts.

Not always and everywhere, but enough.