USAF Enlists Shrinks To Help Drone Pilots Cope 587
An anonymous reader writes "Flying drones from halfway-across the world used to be considered a cushy military job. But the Iraq and Afghanistan wars have become so dependent on the robo-planes that the Air Force has called in chaplains and psychiatrists to help these remote-control warriors cope. 'In a fighter jet, "when you come in at 500-600 miles per hour, drop a 500-pound bomb and then fly away, you don't see what happens," said Colonel Albert K. Aimar, who is commander of the 163d Reconnaissance Wing here and has a bachelor's degree in psychology. But when a Predator fires a missile, "you watch it all the way to impact, and I mean it's very vivid, it's right there and personal. So it does stay in people's minds for a long time."'"
UAV missions more demanding that you might expect. (Score:5, Interesting)
So, while this has received some criticism, I visited Creech AFB [utah.edu] a little while ago and the missions being flown from there in the Middle East and South America are more taxing and complex than you might expect.
Loiter times and length of engagements for these aircraft are not measured in minutes like with traditional fighter jets or helicopters. Rather they are measured in hours with the Predator A airframes capable of loitering over a combat area for 10-13 hours at a time. The Reaper has a slightly shorter loiter time, but those airframes also carry the same combat load as an F-16 and the missions being carried out are just as complex if not more demanding than with piloted missions.
Because UAV missions can last quite a bit of time, the pilots are expected to multi-task with ground troops for extended periods of time, tracking targets and managing data in a way that traditional piloted aircraft crews are not expected to. I observed a number of missions including missions that involved oversight for ground troops and elimination of targets that were active threats to those soldiers on the ground and even though the missions were being piloted from the other side of the globe, the tension in the "cockpit" was palpable. There is no celebration when a target has been engaged successfully and you are very much an intimate observer of what transpires and able to see more than you might expect.
The final telling statistic in this comment thread anyway, has been that the 432nd wing has become in the last couple of years, the Air Force's number one most requested asset and the toll rapid build ups like that take on any organization can be significant.
Welcome to warfare (Score:5, Interesting)
Welcome to warfare. This is not much different than the same consultations offered ground troops who get up close and personal. The military realized that killing someone else really changes a person early on and brought in people who could help - religious leaders and shrinks.
Thank God I was in the Army during a peaceful period. I would certainly regret taking another life, even if I could justify it as the warrior way (don't be on a battlefield without being ready to kill or die). Particularly when today's battles are so one-sided and the targets mingle amongst the population.
vivid and personal? (Score:1, Interesting)
the experience of a drone pilot seems to me to be the very definition of detached and distant
i mean compare their experience to say, plunging a knife into a guys heart and covering his mouth until he stops struggling so his screams don't alert anyone else? now that's vivid and personal if you ask me
and by the way, that's not a theoretical:
http://books.google.com/books?id=74DRCVfzqkgC [google.com]
Everyday.. (Score:5, Interesting)
Apparently, the solution is to recruit kids and tell them it's just a video game.
~Aero
Re:People should search for AC-130 videos (Score:5, Interesting)
Killing people isn't supposed to be fun or normal, that's not news.
Maybe the shrinks are for people who find it fun?
Re:UAV missions more demanding that you might expe (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:UAV missions more demanding that you might expe (Score:5, Interesting)
Were the humans of ancient times cowards when they decided that projectiles were a great way of killing people at a distance?
I guess everyman that doesn't use a short knife or blunt stick in battle is a coward?
Have you ever even been in a fist fight? Because your statement reeks of insulation from the real world. The last thing you want in any battle is a fair fight. Even the Samurai, whose whole being was centered around remaining honorable on the battlefield, realized that and used any advantage they could to kill their enemy.
And if you want to talk philosophy of war in general - well the problem with being a pacifist is it doesn't stop others from killing you. Only warfare does. It's a sad reality.
Re:I've got a great solution... (Score:3, Interesting)
I've got a more realistic solution - let's all start killing each other indiscriminately.
Mine at least has a chance of actually happening.
Mirror image SF... (Score:2, Interesting)
I just read "Spin Control" by Chris Moriarty. In this novel, to reduce troop losses along the Palestine-Israeli border both sides have the soldiers remote-controlled by an AI (called "EMET" on the Israeli side, after the word "Truth" inscribed on the Golem of Prague's forehead). The AI is "told" that it's just playing a video game, and when it realizes that its "character" is a real person killing other real people it can't deal with it... so they terminate it and boot up another copy that hasn't had that realization yet to take over.
Welly, welly, welly, so humans have the same problem...
Re:Welcome to warfare (Score:3, Interesting)
Killing a person changes you? killing ANYTHING changes you a lot.
Remember the first animal you killed? not accidentally, but determined and calculated, you took aim and pulled the trigger to kill it.
That changes you a LOT.
Purpose (Score:5, Interesting)
Whether politicians prefer to call it "pre-emptive" or not, what we are doing is fighting an offensive war. In the case of Iraq this is against an enemy which was no real threat to us, which is why the "justification" so quickly changed from "weapons of mass destruction" to "liberation of the Iraqi people". In the back of their minds, in some place that is untouched by denial, our soldiers have to see just how convenient this whole war has been for the expansion of executive power, the passage of legislation like the Patriot Act, the no-bid contracts for companies that our Vice President and others just-coincidentally happens to have ties to. Despite the incredibly bravery and willingness to put their lives on the line that our soldiers have shown (seriously, these guys have balls of brass and guts of steel; they are not the problem), there is very little honor to be had in a war of this type. Don't mistake me for a pacifist just because I think we need a damned good reason before we go and kill a lot of people; a reason that will stand up to questioning and critical thinking; a reason that does not have the taint of political and financial gain everywhere you look.
When an enemy attacks and like-it-or-not you are forced to defend yourself, the horrors of conflict are not your fault and they are not what you asked for. They are what you had to do. Despite that, it may still take the defenders a long time to learn to cope with the horrors they have witnessed. Just imagine how much harder that must be when you also know that you are the aggressor. Like too many things we do, this is a band-aid designed to alleviate a symptom and not a solution to the actual underlying problem.
War is a terrible, hellish, ugly thing. It's supposed to be. That is its nature, and that is what the drone pilots are finding out the hard way. It's not supposed to be something you do for a questionable reason. What an insult to such honorable men that our leadership puts them through this, and for what?
On Killing (Score:4, Interesting)
If you are interested in the psychological aspects, I recommend reading a book called On Killing [wikipedia.org], by Lieutenant Colonel Dave Grossman. One of the key insights in the book was how the military changed their training (e.g. by making man shaped targets instead of circles) to make people more effective at firing weapons and killing. It has been a few years since I last read it, but I found it fascinating.
He suggested that distance from target increases your ability to cope with killing someone as it depersonalises the situation - so the closer in you are, the harder it becomes to do the deed and/or to cope with it afterwards (at least without training). That seems to back up this situation as the drone pilots see the results of their handiwork - unlike other pilots or those manning artillery.
Re:Purpose (Score:5, Interesting)
You should take a psychology class or two and go learn a few things about where terrorists come from and why they become terrorists. There are many things you fail to understand here.
Actually I made no comment on terrorists, where they come from, why they do what they do. Zero. My commentary was regarding "pre-emptive" war -- that sounds so much better than "offensive war", just like "shock and awe" sounds so much better than "blitzkrieg" even though it's the same thing. So, you're actually responding to statements I never made. Good job.
Now, if you want me to comment on the terrorists themselves, you certainly have a roundabout way of asking but no matter. I can only speculate about this, but here's my take: I would imagine that no matter what the party line might say, the USA's habit of using its intelligence agencies to overthrow foreign governments and install dictators more favorable to our interests would explain their suicidal desperation quite a bit better than "they hate us because of our freedoms".
In terms of meddling with the affairs of soverign nations and pissing off a lot of people worldwide, it may please the government of the USA to play the "innocent victim" role but this is simply not the case. If the USA's leaders had any honor whatsoever, they'd take responsibility for the fact that actions taken to ensure that the USA remains a dominant world superpower are not free; they come at the expense of earning ill will and various enemies worldwide. Enemies who realize they don't stand a chance fighting a conventional war. Does this make those enemies any less murderous and cowardly because they have decided to target civilians? No, it doesn't, and the people who would do that are still the scum of the earth. I am most certainly not saying otherwise. What I am saying is that there is a chain of cause-and-effect here that is sorely neglected in the media anytime a purportedly serious discussion of this topic comes up. A chain of cause-and-effect that would make our leaders something less than the honorable men who are acting in our best interests that the party line would have you believe.
Re:UAV missions more demanding that you might expe (Score:5, Interesting)
Your forgetting something about terrorism. The goals of terrorism is to effect change through hitting non military targets like innocent women and children. You mention Shock and awe without ever realizing that there was military significance to the targets. Showing might and muscle by hitting every target in the course of a few days in hopes of leaving a mental image of superiority doesn't negate that the targets were of military significance when picked.
I can't believe that your advocating killing an innocent woman and child in for doing nothing military related other then living and somehow see that as the same as taking out a intelligence headquarters or a row of tanks. You simply amaze me.
Re:UAV missions more demanding that you might expe (Score:5, Interesting)
"They say that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. They say it because it's true."
They say it because people are so damn afraid to say politically incorrect things and anyone in the world who hates the yanks ( no matter how justified ) must be on to something right? Its a BS statement when said as an absolute truth.
A suicide bomber who is targeting a military asset is, imho a 'freedom fighter'. A suicide bomber who targets a bus full of civilians is a terrorist. A man who kills an enemy soldier is a freedom fighter, a man who beheads a journalist because he is Jewish is a terrorist... Are you seeing the difference?
"There is nothing inherently wrong with using asymmetric warfare tactics."
When you're talking road side bombs of military convoys, sneak attacks, even bombing of business which are occupied by a huge majority of foreign combatants I could agree with stat statement. When you're talking about blowing up a tourist nightclub in Bali, hypothetically speaking of course, then we have long left the theater of asymmetrical warfare and entered into criminal terrorism.
Dead is Dead (Score:3, Interesting)
We can both agree, perhaps, that every war America fights is a major failure. Since we kill many times more civilians in every conflict than soldiers or terrorists.
Your answer may be to say that you're sorry, I'd prefer to stop the killing altogether. Treat sovereign nations as you'd expect to be treated. But that would require the sort of courage that our leadership has lacked since the end of WWII, and belief in moral values that we have since tossed out the window.
Re:UAV missions more demanding that you might expe (Score:5, Interesting)
What should we have done when the Taliban didn't hand Osama over? The obvious thing -- send in special forces to assassinate him. Why is our first reaction to clumsily overthrow the entire government of the country? The Taliban weren't terrorists, just a corrupt, fundamentalist regime (like the Bush administration). The Taliban couldn't have handed us Osama even if they wanted to.
First, if the Bush "regime" were like the Taliban, as you suggest, you would not be able to read this reply as you would already be dead. Next, is your girlfriend... I mean mom or sister... allowed to leave the house "uncovered" and without male (relative or husband) escort? How about vote?
Finally, we didn't overthrow the Taliban alone. First, we had NATO support. Next, we merely assisted the Northern Alliance in ending a civil war that has been raging for decades. I guess you would prefer that we let innocent men, women and children continue to die as a result of that civil war.
Oh, and "assassination" truly is forbidden by US law. Unlike war, which is perfectly legal. I find it ironic that so many who want Bush impeached for breaking non-existent laws suggest that maybe he should have broken REAL laws instead. Do you really not see the irony there?
Re:Welcome to warfare (Score:2, Interesting)
Yep. I took aim at the bird sitting in the tree and pulled the trigger of my BB Gun. I went over to the bird and saw it was still alive. I reloaded and put a BB through its head. Since then I have never purposefully killed another animal, the distaste for killing something that was looking at me through labored breathing stuck with me that strongly.
[note]I am not a vegan or anything else, I will happily eat meat etc. There is just something about me killing something that was happily skipping along one second and then dead the next. That said, I still shoot guns and would have absolutely no problem killing a "living breathing" human trying to invade my home. Not every gun nut is a hunter.[/note]
Re:UAV missions more demanding that you might expe (Score:3, Interesting)
One small correction to your otherwise excellent post.
They banned speech, music, and every other freedom you can imagine but hey at least there were no drug problems right..
Actually, the Taliban on "reduced" opium production for the purpose of reducing the supply so as to increase the market price. They didn't destroy any "product" that was harvested and stored. Once prices increased, they released it to the world market....
Citation: me. I returned this May after spending a year over there.
Re:UAV missions more demanding that you might expe (Score:2, Interesting)
Would IT at NYSE be a legit target then?
What about the technical quants? Are they doing math, or are they far up the chain enough to be a "military target"?
Interesting questions.
Re:UAV missions more demanding that you might expe (Score:3, Interesting)
Get a grip... better yet.... get a book and please, READ IT
I've done better. I served and went to the Mid-East and got to see the gratitude first hand. I have met with many Japanese and not one a single one is still bitter over WWII (which I guess we started by bombing Pearl Harbor?) What you see on TV or read in books is at best second hand and tainted by the opinions of the producer.
Re:Awwww. Poor Babies.... (Score:2, Interesting)
STFU you fucking pussy. You're just pissed because your stinkhole country isn't running the world and being the imperialist asshole anymore. Europe doesn't run the world anymore. Get over it.
Re:Equating the sides (Score:4, Interesting)
The failure was the civilians dying in contravention of the laws of war, not the failure of the action.
The failure, i.e., killing civilians, is no better if done by intent than if done by accident.
Re:UAV missions more demanding that you might expe (Score:3, Interesting)
Your assuming several things that just aren't true. First is the the world trade centers "where the economists organize the exploitation of the foreign nations that they are dominating". The second is that there is actual exploitation that occurs or was behind the 911 attacks. Now I know that the left have adopted some imaginary reasons why everyone hates us, but Bin Laden himself said the attacks were because of injustices against the Lebanese and Palestinians by Israel and the United States. Nothing about the WTO's actions or anything.
But I like how you stand up for what you believe in. I mean you have crafted this fictional mental image in your mind and justified their actions in some self defeatists attitude. You then stand by it to the point your willing to mention your fallacies in public and away from the other brainwashed people. Exploitation is a reletive term. Me paying someone to cutmy grass is exploiting their wanting to work. Does that make me a bad person now? Should terrorists blow my bank up because they cashed the check? Why don't you get real here.
Your also forgetting about all the innocent people who did nothing but got onto a plane that day. Are you saying they are military targets by association or that they deserved to die because of your warped and pathetic mind that justifies killing innocent people?
It takes a stupid mother fucker to say that and actually mean it. I guess the US should start bombing banks and office buildings that we have long taken great pains to avoid. After all, they are legitimate military targets according to you right? I wish I would run into you in real life. I would show you what a legitimate target is or isn't.
Obviously, you have no clue what the term provke means in a military or diplomatic sense. That's ok, no one ever claimed that you were smart so I won't dwell on that. But what does leaving nuclear waste have to do with anything. It was a technology we used and that was that. it has no bearing on the conversation whatsoever at all. Or are you attempting to pull everything out of your arsenal in hopes that someone will agree with you?
Oh yea.. You really know what is going on here. What war crimes were they accused of? Hmm? What terrorists acts have they done that isn't some little twist in your not so bright mind. And make sure that you answer that with acts prior to 9/11.
Instead, why don't you just become a suicide bomber that way you will die and the world will be better off all the way around. Come on, show your courage to yourself and all of the rest of us. Do it, send a letter or something before you do so we know have valiant you were sneaking into a place with innocent civilians and children like a subway in london, or a bus in Israel, and when enough innocent people get around, blow yourself up. You will goto heaven and get 72 virgins but wait, in a recent discovery, a mistranslation has come to light, the purpetual virgins don't become vigin again, they can't have sex in the first place. I guess that makes your heaven a hell doesn't it. But for some reason, living with 72 women that won't touch you sexually won't be much different then now right.
Re:UAV missions more demanding that you might expe (Score:5, Interesting)
That would mean that the Allies were terrorists during WWII for their air campaign of targeting civilian cities as a means of breaking the enemy's will to fight. It would also mean that unrestricted submarine warfare during WWI and WWII were acts of terrorism.
More importantly, you're forgetting the biggest down side to only attacking military targets. If the civilians are fat and happy and warm in bed, is easy for them to support continued military action. The main reason to attack civilians is to remind everyone that war is painful and to make the cost of war so expensive that the enemy is no longer willing to pay it. Which then ends the war.
And if you want moral justification, then just remind yourself that a society goes to war. A society full of farmers, teachers, leaders, doctors, contractors, miners, bankers, etc. are needed to create, improve and run the infrastructure necessary to build, feed and maintain the military that's oppressing the freedom fighter and/or terrorist.
Just because you're a civilian, safe at home, far away from the front lines, doesn't mean you have some God given or universal right to remain safe.
Even Star Trek covered the problems of "painless" war in A Taste of Armageddon http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Taste_of_Armageddon [wikipedia.org], in which a "war" lasted for centuries:
"The landing party soon discovers that the entire war between the two planets is completely simulated by computers which launch wargame attacks and counterattacks, then calculate damage and select the dead. When a citizen is reported as "killed", they must submit themselves for termination by stepping inside a disintegration booth. Anan 7 informs Kirk that the simulated attacks and following executions is the agreed system of war decided by both sides in a treaty with Vendikar. A conventional war was deemed too destructive to the environments and societies of both planets."
Re:UAV missions more demanding that you might expe (Score:1, Interesting)
No, it should be a matter of disciplined action, and "guilt" isn't required to ensure discipline.
Perfect discipline means that an order to commit an atrocity, once given, will be obeyed the whole way down the chain of command. Imperfect discipline means there's a chance that, somewhere along the line, someone will stop and say "This isn't right.".
(Whether that's good or not depends on whether you want your soldiers to be willing to commit atrocities.)
Re:UAV missions more demanding that you might expe (Score:3, Interesting)
I do agree with most of your sentiments, but I do have to ask. USS Cole - terrorist attack or para military attack on the US?