geofflambert,
The psychotropic medicines most commonly used by the US Army in warzones seem to be ( according the literature investigating their impact on soldiers ):
1. Amphetamines ( can cause psychosis, hallucination, decision-making issues and appear to predispose to inappropriate emotional processing of events leading to PTSD. There are also effects on the processing of memory - which isn't like a recording, as most people think it is ).
2. Hypnotics and benzodiazepines ( to cause sleep/help come down from amphetamines etc - again these can cause derealisation/depersonalisation, difficulties with emotional processing and the processing of memories not to mention disturbed sleep states etc. One of the commonly prescribed ones is even a date rape drug ( the primary characteristic of these drugs is the inducement of fugue-like states with disturbance in the processing and laying down of memories ).
3. Anti-depressants: Used for their anxiolytic ( anti-anxiety ) and anti-depressant effects. Also, from what I can see, being used to boost resilience to stressors. Most common ones used are Selective Serotonin Inhibitors such as Fluoxetine, Sertraline, Escitalopram. The first two seem to predominate.
4. Codeine-containing medications which, as ever, can be abused, engender addiction and all of the processing, memory and decision-making issues which come with addiction.
Overall it is no wonder the suicide rates and familial ( and stranger ) homicide rates among recently returned soldiers have skyrocketed since 2003/4 when multiple tour commitments really started to take a toll. Most of the side-effects and atrocities associated with these meds are, undoubtedly, buried within larger engagements and only come to the surface when the incident involves one or very few men and occurs outside of the context of a patrol ( where the presence of dead women and children cannot be explained away as easily as the presence of dead men of military age ).
Depending on the mix of meds you look at I've read medical reports which talk of approximately 25% of troops in-theatre ( that includes the REMFs etc ) being on some form of psychotropic medication. It seems reasonable that even accounting for increased emotional fragility of those who only signed up for the educational benefits and found themselves in Assistan or somewhere similar and their increased propensity to seek chemical tranquilisation that those at the sharp end of things have more then 25% of the troops there on meds.
I've treated several ex-soldiers from the US Army, Marines etc. Mostly from the pre-2005 deployments including several who were heavily involved in Fallujah and they all reported extremely high rates of the doling out of multiple psychotropics meds on an almost no-questions asked basis with troops self-selecting amongst multiple medications based on the psychological effect they wished ( e.g. choosing between more hypnotics to sleep or benzos to relax or codeine when they wanted to get a bit of a buzz etc ). It was all very much in keeping with the sorts of poor decision-making and excess ( execution of enemy wounded etc ) which was reported at the time (most of these meds cause disinhibition, decreased adherence to rules/laws, can cause emotional states where people feel rules don't apply to them and certainly would impinge empathy and on the functional working of a military chain of command ) and also very much laid the groundwork for massive psychological problems when these guys tried to re-integrate into normal life.
DanNC,
I suggest you look up de-escalation in the dictionary. The definitions all discuss de-escalation as a means of avoiding an increase in the quantity or quality of a commitment/violence etc. They do NOT tie the ending of a state of commitment ( to a war, to a doctrine, to supporting a company or team etc ) to the notion of de-escalation.
I know you'll probably want to argue that you're right irrespective of the objective reality of the hermeneutics and etymology of the word
de-escalation but, really, the
hermeneutics of the situation are irrefutable.
As you can see the root of "to escalate" is "escalade" which not only has a socially hermeneutic meaning of to increase but actually has its physical root in the use of ladders to "scale" a defensive wall. That takes us back to the 16th Century. We can go back to Roman times and see that the Italian root is "scalate" - to scale, to climb and the Latin root is "scandere". There are Hebrew roots also but I don't think there's much point going into that.
Basically escalate has the socially hermeneutic connotation of "to increase" and "to climb". There is NO intimation that it is linked to the ending of the action or the ending of a state of conflict. Thus to de-escalate has no inherent linkage to the ending of a state of being or motion, it, instead, refers to the direction of that motion. You may infer that meaning but socially you aren't a sufficiently large group of people to effect a shift in the hermeneutics of the word.
I don't normally bother going into that level of detail but, really, to say dropping an atomic bomb is a de-escalation is so wrong-headed that it deserves to be fully challenged. Nothing personal.
