quote:

He's saying -- and the numbers back this up -- that over half the suicides were committed by soldiers who'd never deployed or who were on their first deployment.

However, this is a questionable interpretation of the data at best. Because if we look at the data another way, we see this:

Completed at least one full tour prior to suicide: 201
On first tour at time of suicide: 101
Never deployed: 133
Distilled further, we get this:

Soldier had deployed to a combat zone: 302
Soldier had never deployed to a combat zone: 133

quote:

Failed personal relationships, legal and financial problems and the stress of their jobs were factors motivating the soldiers to commit suicide, according to the report.
About a quarter of those who killed themselves had a history of at least one psychiatric disorder. Of those, about 20 percent had been diagnosed with a mood disorder such as bipolar disorder and/or depression; and 8 percent had been diagnosed with an anxiety disorder, including post traumatic stress disorder _ one of the signature injuries of the conflict in Iraq.
...
The rate for those serving in the wars stayed about the same, 19.4 per 100,000 in 2006, compared with 19.9 in 2005.

quote:

Originally posted by oseles:
RE: http://www.military.com/opinion/0,15202,186766,00.html

I started reading this article because I have meet and worked with GEN Chiarelli. I have met GEN Peter Chiarelli and he is as good as they come. From what I know about him, he does not shoot from the hip.
The more I read, they less this OpEd is telling me.

quote:

He's saying -- and the numbers back this up -- that over half the suicides were committed by soldiers who'd never deployed or who were on their first deployment.

However, this is a questionable interpretation of the data at best. Because if we look at the data another way, we see this:

Completed at least one full tour prior to suicide: 201
On first tour at time of suicide: 101
Never deployed: 133
Distilled further, we get this:

Soldier had deployed to a combat zone: 302
Soldier had never deployed to a combat zone: 133

He, as Admiral Mullen choose to go with the 'combat' has to be the determining factor on military suicides.
i.e. 302/133 deployed to combat zone vs not deployed to combat zone.

While GEN Peter Chiarelli looks at the non-deployed + 1st tour deployed vs multiple tours with numbers of 234 vs 201.

Brandon Friedman goes with the combat argument, that is his interpretation of the numbers.

This author has his own agenda and shows how you can interpret the same numbers in two different ways. Given that there are multiple factors that lead to suicide, I think his OpEd simplifies too much.

What I didn't catch until I had been though the OpEd several times, while he presents the total suicide number, he does NOT provide the size of the three groups he uses to make his arguments, which is a very important piece of information.

If the first tour total sample size was twice as large as the multi-tour sample, that would actually be a higher suicide rate than the multi-tour rate (202 vs 201 per sample size).

From the 2007 Washington Post article linked in the OpEd there numbers were (again, no numbers on the sample size):
99 Suicides in 2006, of which
28 were deployed and
71 were not deployed (more than 2.5 times as many).

Cause listed in the Report they got included:

quote:

Failed personal relationships, legal and financial problems and the stress of their jobs were factors motivating the soldiers to commit suicide, according to the report.
About a quarter of those who killed themselves had a history of at least one psychiatric disorder. Of those, about 20 percent had been diagnosed with a mood disorder such as bipolar disorder and/or depression; and 8 percent had been diagnosed with an anxiety disorder, including post traumatic stress disorder _ one of the signature injuries of the conflict in Iraq.
...
The rate for those serving in the wars stayed about the same, 19.4 per 100,000 in 2006, compared with 19.9 in 2005.

While Brandon Friedman has been there, so has GEN Peter Chiarelli.

What I know about Brandon Friedman is what they post with the OpEd, which includes the fact he heads a political action group (does not discuss his politics).

BUT, he only identified three causitive factors in his article, when there are many.

That you have more combat veterans committing suicide than those that have not deployed shows that the post-combat treatment of veterans (those still on active duty and those not) needs to be looked at. But we also need to look into the 133 suicides by people that have never deployed. (133 never deployed vs 101 first time deployed).

When I was is Basic Training we had a 'soldier' commit suicide on the second night of Basic. He had been ok at dinner (from what I can remember) and went to take a late shower, no real warning signed a bunch of boots, or for that matter DIs could pick up on. Unfortunately we do not have tests that will show that kind of problem in advance.

I beleive last fall Military.com posted a story about Military Suicides and it included a statement to the effect that the Suicide rate in the Army was lower than a compairable rate of civilians.

While suicide is a, and always has been a problem with the Military, reading his OpEd makes me think he is just pushing his agenda.

quote:

Originally posted by popsiq:

quote:

Originally posted by oseles:
RE: http://www.military.com/opinion/0,15202,186766,00.html

I started reading this article because I have meet and worked with GEN Chiarelli. I have met GEN Peter Chiarelli and he is as good as they come. From what I know about him, he does not shoot from the hip.
The more I read, they less this OpEd is telling me.

quote:

He's saying -- and the numbers back this up -- that over half the suicides were committed by soldiers who'd never deployed or who were on their first deployment.

However, this is a questionable interpretation of the data at best. Because if we look at the data another way, we see this:

Completed at least one full tour prior to suicide: 201
On first tour at time of suicide: 101
Never deployed: 133
Distilled further, we get this:

Soldier had deployed to a combat zone: 302
Soldier had never deployed to a combat zone: 133

He, as Admiral Mullen choose to go with the 'combat' has to be the determining factor on military suicides.
i.e. 302/133 deployed to combat zone vs not deployed to combat zone.

While GEN Peter Chiarelli looks at the non-deployed + 1st tour deployed vs multiple tours with numbers of 234 vs 201.

Brandon Friedman goes with the combat argument, that is his interpretation of the numbers.

This author has his own agenda and shows how you can interpret the same numbers in two different ways. Given that there are multiple factors that lead to suicide, I think his OpEd simplifies too much.

What I didn't catch until I had been though the OpEd several times, while he presents the total suicide number, he does NOT provide the size of the three groups he uses to make his arguments, which is a very important piece of information.

If the first tour total sample size was twice as large as the multi-tour sample, that would actually be a higher suicide rate than the multi-tour rate (202 vs 201 per sample size).

From the 2007 Washington Post article linked in the OpEd there numbers were (again, no numbers on the sample size):
99 Suicides in 2006, of which
28 were deployed and
71 were not deployed (more than 2.5 times as many).

Cause listed in the Report they got included:

quote:

Failed personal relationships, legal and financial problems and the stress of their jobs were factors motivating the soldiers to commit suicide, according to the report.
About a quarter of those who killed themselves had a history of at least one psychiatric disorder. Of those, about 20 percent had been diagnosed with a mood disorder such as bipolar disorder and/or depression; and 8 percent had been diagnosed with an anxiety disorder, including post traumatic stress disorder _ one of the signature injuries of the conflict in Iraq.
...
The rate for those serving in the wars stayed about the same, 19.4 per 100,000 in 2006, compared with 19.9 in 2005.

While Brandon Friedman has been there, so has GEN Peter Chiarelli.

What I know about Brandon Friedman is what they post with the OpEd, which includes the fact he heads a political action group (does not discuss his politics).

BUT, he only identified three causitive factors in his article, when there are many.

That you have more combat veterans committing suicide than those that have not deployed shows that the post-combat treatment of veterans (those still on active duty and those not) needs to be looked at. But we also need to look into the 133 suicides by people that have never deployed. (133 never deployed vs 101 first time deployed).

When I was is Basic Training we had a 'soldier' commit suicide on the second night of Basic. He had been ok at dinner (from what I can remember) and went to take a late shower, no real warning signed a bunch of boots, or for that matter DIs could pick up on. Unfortunately we do not have tests that will show that kind of problem in advance.

I beleive last fall Military.com posted a story about Military Suicides and it included a statement to the effect that the Suicide rate in the Army was lower than a compairable rate of civilians.

While suicide is a, and always has been a problem with the Military, reading his OpEd makes me think he is just pushing his agenda.

********'s being used to baffle brains again. There's more, worse someplace else is a common military mindset.

What seem evident is that there's some sort of 'weed out' problem at a very primary level, huh?

Giving somebody the opportunity to be 'Army Strong' when he maybe shouldn't be in uniform at all might be at the root of these people taking a terminal course to de-enlistment.

Surely there is evidence on maladjustment before they go looking down the barrel of their weapon, or putting a belt round their neck?

What the General is saying is that 'good' soldiers don't kill themselves. But that's not the problem. 'Bad' soldiers are; and in increasing numbers, and in the public media.

quote:

Originally posted by popsiq:

quote:

Originally posted by popsiq:

quote:

Originally posted by oseles:
RE: http://www.military.com/opinion/0,15202,186766,00.html

I started reading this article because I have meet and worked with GEN Chiarelli. I have met GEN Peter Chiarelli and he is as good as they come. From what I know about him, he does not shoot from the hip.
The more I read, they less this OpEd is telling me.

quote:

He's saying -- and the numbers back this up -- that over half the suicides were committed by soldiers who'd never deployed or who were on their first deployment.

However, this is a questionable interpretation of the data at best. Because if we look at the data another way, we see this:

Completed at least one full tour prior to suicide: 201
On first tour at time of suicide: 101
Never deployed: 133
Distilled further, we get this:

Soldier had deployed to a combat zone: 302
Soldier had never deployed to a combat zone: 133

He, as Admiral Mullen choose to go with the 'combat' has to be the determining factor on military suicides.
i.e. 302/133 deployed to combat zone vs not deployed to combat zone.

While GEN Peter Chiarelli looks at the non-deployed + 1st tour deployed vs multiple tours with numbers of 234 vs 201.

Brandon Friedman goes with the combat argument, that is his interpretation of the numbers.

This author has his own agenda and shows how you can interpret the same numbers in two different ways. Given that there are multiple factors that lead to suicide, I think his OpEd simplifies too much.

What I didn't catch until I had been though the OpEd several times, while he presents the total suicide number, he does NOT provide the size of the three groups he uses to make his arguments, which is a very important piece of information.

If the first tour total sample size was twice as large as the multi-tour sample, that would actually be a higher suicide rate than the multi-tour rate (202 vs 201 per sample size).

From the 2007 Washington Post article linked in the OpEd there numbers were (again, no numbers on the sample size):
99 Suicides in 2006, of which
28 were deployed and
71 were not deployed (more than 2.5 times as many).

Cause listed in the Report they got included:

quote:

Failed personal relationships, legal and financial problems and the stress of their jobs were factors motivating the soldiers to commit suicide, according to the report.
About a quarter of those who killed themselves had a history of at least one psychiatric disorder. Of those, about 20 percent had been diagnosed with a mood disorder such as bipolar disorder and/or depression; and 8 percent had been diagnosed with an anxiety disorder, including post traumatic stress disorder _ one of the signature injuries of the conflict in Iraq.
...
The rate for those serving in the wars stayed about the same, 19.4 per 100,000 in 2006, compared with 19.9 in 2005.

While Brandon Friedman has been there, so has GEN Peter Chiarelli.

What I know about Brandon Friedman is what they post with the OpEd, which includes the fact he heads a political action group (does not discuss his politics).

BUT, he only identified three causitive factors in his article, when there are many.

That you have more combat veterans committing suicide than those that have not deployed shows that the post-combat treatment of veterans (those still on active duty and those not) needs to be looked at. But we also need to look into the 133 suicides by people that have never deployed. (133 never deployed vs 101 first time deployed).

When I was is Basic Training we had a 'soldier' commit suicide on the second night of Basic. He had been ok at dinner (from what I can remember) and went to take a late shower, no real warning signed a bunch of boots, or for that matter DIs could pick up on. Unfortunately we do not have tests that will show that kind of problem in advance.

I beleive last fall Military.com posted a story about Military Suicides and it included a statement to the effect that the Suicide rate in the Army was lower than a compairable rate of civilians.

While suicide is a, and always has been a problem with the Military, reading his OpEd makes me think he is just pushing his agenda.

Bullroar's being used to baffle brains again. There's more, worse, someplace else is a common military mindset.

What appears evident is that there's some sort of 'weed out' problem at a very primary level.

Giving somebody the opportunity to be 'Army Strong' when he/she maybe shouldn't be in uniform at all, might be at the root of these people taking a terminal course to de-enlistment.

Surely there is evidence on maladjustment before they go looking down the barrel of their weapon, or putting a belt round their neck?

What the General is saying is that 'good' soldiers don't kill themselves. But that's not the problem. 'Bad' soldiers are; and in increasing numbers, and in the public media.

quote:

Originally posted by popsiq:

quote:

Originally posted by popsiq:

quote:

Originally posted by popsiq:

quote:

Originally posted by oseles:
RE: http://www.military.com/opinion/0,15202,186766,00.html

I started reading this article because I have meet and worked with GEN Chiarelli. I have met GEN Peter Chiarelli and he is as good as they come. From what I know about him, he does not shoot from the hip.
The more I read, they less this OpEd is telling me.

quote:

He's saying -- and the numbers back this up -- that over half the suicides were committed by soldiers who'd never deployed or who were on their first deployment.

However, this is a questionable interpretation of the data at best. Because if we look at the data another way, we see this:

Completed at least one full tour prior to suicide: 201
On first tour at time of suicide: 101
Never deployed: 133
Distilled further, we get this:

Soldier had deployed to a combat zone: 302
Soldier had never deployed to a combat zone: 133

He, as Admiral Mullen choose to go with the 'combat' has to be the determining factor on military suicides.
i.e. 302/133 deployed to combat zone vs not deployed to combat zone.

While GEN Peter Chiarelli looks at the non-deployed + 1st tour deployed vs multiple tours with numbers of 234 vs 201.

Brandon Friedman goes with the combat argument, that is his interpretation of the numbers.

This author has his own agenda and shows how you can interpret the same numbers in two different ways. Given that there are multiple factors that lead to suicide, I think his OpEd simplifies too much.

What I didn't catch until I had been though the OpEd several times, while he presents the total suicide number, he does NOT provide the size of the three groups he uses to make his arguments, which is a very important piece of information.

If the first tour total sample size was twice as large as the multi-tour sample, that would actually be a higher suicide rate than the multi-tour rate (202 vs 201 per sample size).

From the 2007 Washington Post article linked in the OpEd there numbers were (again, no numbers on the sample size):
99 Suicides in 2006, of which
28 were deployed and
71 were not deployed (more than 2.5 times as many).

Cause listed in the Report they got included:

quote:

Failed personal relationships, legal and financial problems and the stress of their jobs were factors motivating the soldiers to commit suicide, according to the report.
About a quarter of those who killed themselves had a history of at least one psychiatric disorder. Of those, about 20 percent had been diagnosed with a mood disorder such as bipolar disorder and/or depression; and 8 percent had been diagnosed with an anxiety disorder, including post traumatic stress disorder _ one of the signature injuries of the conflict in Iraq.
...
The rate for those serving in the wars stayed about the same, 19.4 per 100,000 in 2006, compared with 19.9 in 2005.

While Brandon Friedman has been there, so has GEN Peter Chiarelli.

What I know about Brandon Friedman is what they post with the OpEd, which includes the fact he heads a political action group (does not discuss his politics).

BUT, he only identified three causitive factors in his article, when there are many.

That you have more combat veterans committing suicide than those that have not deployed shows that the post-combat treatment of veterans (those still on active duty and those not) needs to be looked at. But we also need to look into the 133 suicides by people that have never deployed. (133 never deployed vs 101 first time deployed).

When I was is Basic Training we had a 'soldier' commit suicide on the second night of Basic. He had been ok at dinner (from what I can remember) and went to take a late shower, no real warning signed a bunch of boots, or for that matter DIs could pick up on. Unfortunately we do not have tests that will show that kind of problem in advance.

I beleive last fall Military.com posted a story about Military Suicides and it included a statement to the effect that the Suicide rate in the Army was lower than a compairable rate of civilians.

While suicide is a, and always has been a problem with the Military, reading his OpEd makes me think he is just pushing his agenda.

Bullroar's being used to baffle brains again. There's more, worse, someplace else is a common military mindset.

What appears evident is that there's some sort of 'weed out' problem at a very primary level.

Giving somebody the opportunity to be 'Army Strong' when he/she maybe shouldn't be in uniform at all, might be at the root of these people taking a terminal course to de-enlistment.

Surely there is evidence of maladjustment before they go looking down the barrel of their weapon, or putting a belt round their neck?

What the General is saying is that 'good' soldiers don't kill themselves. But that's not the problem. 'Bad' soldiers are; and in increasing numbers, and in the public media.