There are many details remaining about the gunman who opened fire at Fort Hood, Texas, killing four, including himself, and injuring 16 more. But here are some key facts about Spc. Ivan Lopez: He served four months in Iraq, he was being treated for undiagnosed posttraumatic-stress disorder, and he was not in combat during his deployment.
In this type of situation, it might be easy to overlook someone who suffered mental anguish without actually seeing combat. But there are elements of war that are disturbing beyond shooting a weapon and being shot at.
So can a soldier get PTSD without actually seeing combat?
“Yes, you can,” says Craig Bryan, the executive director of the National Center for Veterans Studies. “It’s actually an issue the science in the last several years has been catching up with.”
In the past year, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, which classifies mental disorders for the American Psychiatric Association, changed its criteria for PTSD to no longer require that a person must have been in a life-threatening situation.
The APA found that many members of the military and veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, even though they didn’t think they were going to die, manifested the problems associated with PTSD.
“They have been exposed to atrocities or other events that have a significant effect on their world view, sense of self, etc.,” said Bryan, an associate professor at the University of Utah. “People can struggle with mental-health problems even if they haven’t been in combat.”
Examples of those kinds of events range from seeing dead bodies to seeing other people kill each other to smelling rotting flesh.
In this case, the gunman may have witnessed disturbing images that would eventually require treatment for depression, anxiety, and behavioral issues. Those details are sure to come up.
One of the major struggles for psychiatric professionals, however, is that they don’t have the capabilities of determining who is going to become violent and who’s not, Bryan said.
But in the last decade, through a large number of clinical trials that the military has helped fund, they’re getting closer to resolving this issue.
And the situation is urgent. According to a recent Washington Post-Kaiser Family Foundation poll, 31 percent of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans say their mental and emotional health is worse than before the wars. If it remains a problem, military suicides and mass shootings are likely to continue.
What We're Following See More »
The Commission on Presidential Debates put out a statement today that gives credence to Donald Trump's claims that he had a bad microphone on Monday night. "Regarding the first debate, there were issues regarding Donald Trump's audio that affected the sound level in the debate hall," read the statement in its entirety.
"A video of Donald Trump testifying under oath about his provocative rhetoric about Mexicans and other Latinos is set to go public" as soon as today. "Trump gave the testimony in June at a law office in Washington in connection with one of two lawsuits he filed last year after prominent chefs reacted to the controversy over his remarks by pulling out of plans to open restaurants at his new D.C. hotel. D.C. Superior Court Judge Brian Holeman said in an order issued Thursday evening that fears the testimony might show up in campaign commercials were no basis to keep the public from seeing the video."
No matter that his recall of foreign leaders leaves something to be desired, Gary Johnson is the choice of the Chicago Tribune's editorial board. The editors argue that Donald Trump couldn't do the job of president, while hitting Hillary Clinton for "her intent to greatly increase federal spending and taxation, and serious questions about honesty and trust." Which leaves them with Johnson. "Every American who casts a vote for him is standing for principles," they write, "and can be proud of that vote. Yes, proud of a candidate in 2016."
"By all means vote, just not for Donald Trump." That's the message from USA Today editors, who are making the first recommendation on a presidential race in the paper's 34-year history. It's not exactly an endorsement; they make clear that the editorial board "does not have a consensus for a Clinton endorsement." But they state flatly that Donald Trump is, by "unanimous consensus of the editorial board, unfit for the presidency."