Army report on violent crime tied to combat leaves out accountability
Maj. Gen. Mark Graham, commander of Fort Carson, during news conference Wednesday to release the Army's report on violent crime related to combat. The Gazette photo
Three generals, including the Army surgeon general, Lt. Gen. Eric Schoomaker, told a news conference at Fort Carson that the stress of combat played a role, but it could not be singled out as the principal cause. Two of the 14 soldiers in the 4th Brigade Combat Team – the focus of the study – had not been deployed at all, and only two had been deployed more than once.
The Army’s report on violent crimes as they relate to combat exposure said several factors contributed to the violence, including substance abuse, mental illness and failures of leadership.
“Those three in combination are a really toxic mix,” Schoomaker said.
Perhaps the most disturbing possible failure of leadership involves reports of officers and non-commissioned officers seeking to bar solders from getting mental health counseling.
The situation was described as unique in the Army.
After the criticism it took in 2007 for the Walter Reed Army Medical Center not even having a center to treat post traumatic stress disorder, the service, with Fort Carson among the leaders, dramatically stepped up the care available.
Every soldier was assigned a buddy and told to watch him or her for signs of change that could signal a risk. Warrior Transition Units were set up.
This program has worked to the point that there are 5,000 counseling sessions with soldiers each month. It was not explained how many soldiers were in that group as presumably some went more than once.
Even more programs are planned, though a shortage of military and civilian behavioral psychologists is a barrier.
The generals told reporters that peer pressure was still a problem and asked the media to help get the word out. They also disclosed that special resiliency training has been set up on a large scale. That “R” word has long been the Holy Grail for the Army as it sought soldiers who already had it.
What the Army didn’t investigate is how officers and non-commissioned officers in command of these men did their jobs. Some of the soldiers were known to have not attended all their counseling sessions, although each was supposed to have another soldier assigned to him or her to make sure they attended.
Pressed by reporters, the generals said accountability in the form of discipline was not a goal. The Army refuses to say whether commanders whose soldiers were involved in the deaths have been disciplined. Peer and personal factors were at least as important in perpetuating stigma as leadership issues, the report said.
Maj. Gen. Mark Graham, Fort Carson’s commander, Lt. Gen. Michael Rochelle, Army director of personnel, and Schoomaker turned back several questions aimed at finding out if they could tie any of the cases to the failure of an individual officer.
Rochelle said the report “was not a tool that was intended to be used to either fix accountability or to be used for any sort of disciplinary action that may follow.”
Dr. John McInroy, of Denver, a psychologist and retired Army Reserves lieutenant colonel who has treated many military PTSD victims, was skeptical that even more improvements could achieve the changes sought without punishment. “If I was the commander of one of these units and had three or four or five of these criminals in my unit, I would expect to be relieved,” McInroy said.
The generals declined to point to any obvious trigger for the violent behavior, including combat, alcohol and drug abuse, as well as the waivers that allowed some soldiers to enter the Army who ordinarily would have been rejected. They said that waivers had not been a good investment and that higher standards have been reinstated. In essence, those admitted under waivers had been more likely to return to alcohol and drug use, for example, but waivers were not a major factor in the violence.
The generals said the largest number of perpretators were in one unit, the 4th Brigade Combat Team, which may have had a unique situation. Those involved had higher rates of known risk factors, including alcohol and drug abuse, and mood and anxiety disorders. Previous criminal behavior was found in many cases. Suicides during the same period — the number was not given — were spread out across the entire post. Major crimes have increased across the entire Army, the report said.
Graham said that despite many improvements designed to detect at-risk soldiers from the moment they arrive, he remains concerned some will fall through the cracks.
THE GAZETTE: Combat stress contributed to soldiers’ crimes back home
CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR: Why do some soldiers commit violent crimes?
