USAF Enlists Shrinks To Help Drone Pilots Cope

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.

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.

Re:UAV missions more demanding that you might expe

I fully respect that from time to time, horrible things must be done.

That said, I hope the USAF has only limited success with brainwashing all the guilt away. Guilt is important. Guilt is what reminds us what is morally right. When the operator pushes the button that fires the missile people die. Again, I understand that sometimes it must be done. But the decision to kill should be tough and difficult and fraught with guilt.

Re:UAV missions more demanding that you might expe

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:UAV missions more demanding that you might expe

No they are not,

A soldier would rather not be doing his job and while they think they have to kill they do not think they are going to heaven because they are doing it. A suicide bomber believes that by *intentionally* killing a bus of women, kids, and elderly they are earning heaven.

The Afgan Weddings, while tragic were not intentional, the pilot did not wake up that morning and prepare himself to kill a bunch of civi's. The suicide bomber meticulously goes though ceremony preparing himself, selects the busiest bus, the most crowded market, or the most painful target thats a huge difference than the soldier.

"This is to manage the international drugs syndicate monopoly on Opium - which has grown EXPONENTIALLY since Karzai was installed as the mayor of Kabul.This is the worst thing to happen since Stalin."

WOW, just wow your hate blinds you.. Yes there are huge problems in Afghanistan right now and it would have been a million times better for all concerned (Iraq / US / Afgans) if we had stayed the hell out of Iraq so we could have then focused on helping Afghanistan stabalize, ill give you all that..

But to say that things in Afghanistan were *better* under the Taliban is either a pathetic F'ing joke, or proof you've jumped the shark. They (the Taliban) made shows of shooting women in soccer stadiums for daring to learn to read, or earning money, ... They banned speech, music, and every other freedom you can imagine but hey at least there were no drug problems right..

Re:UAV missions more demanding that you might expe

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

"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.

Re:UAV missions more demanding that you might expe

Jeremiah,

I have to disagree with you here. While I believe that our current policy with respect to Afghanistan and the export of the war on drugs to that region of the world is remarkably short sighted, indeed even foolish in both the long and short terms. I would also agree with you in that the current war in Iraq is a disaster of epic historical proportions that has been mismanaged by members of our government who have lied to the American public to further their own goals.

However, characterizing the work of the 432nd as equivalent to terrorist bombings is hyperbolic extremism. The work that I witnessed was remarkable in that the UAV squadrons have the time and take the effort to minimize collateral damage to both civilians and religious institutions. For instance, I watched while crews waited and followed confirmed roadside bombers while they left a Mosque crowded with other people. The crews waited patiently for those bombers to get to a safe distance before engaging them, preserving the life of everyone else in the mosque. This sort of thing happens every day and I'd argue that UAV operations are far more surgical, minimizing collateral damage because of the time that the crews are allowed to invest in their mission.

Equating the sides

They are EXACTLY the same.

Look at the ratio of Wedding Parties obliterated in Afghanistan to that of "terrorist" groupings.

You are equating the deeds based on their results, rather than the intentions of the perpetrators. It is a very common fallacy, so I don't blame you in particular. For example, for reasons irrational we punish successful murderers harsher than the failures, even though the crime is exactly the same.

Similarly, you assign equal blame for a blown-up wedding party — and spice it up with graphic depictions of bodily damage ("mothers decapitated"). Very touching, and very idiotic — either you are an idiot yourself, or you have serious contempt for your audience.

US does not target the innocent — when we kill them, it is by a tragic mistake, a major failure. Terrorists do target them — the "decapitated mothers" means success for them, and a cause for celebrations.

Re:UAV missions more demanding that you might expe

It happens in games too [wikipedia.org]. That level of anguish, empathy, and debate was created in a text-based game. I don't think you can get more disassociated than that. The distinguishing factor would seem to be knowing that there's a real person at the receiving end. Witness the debates over PvP vs. PvM in multiplayer online RPGs.

People should search for AC-130 videos

I don't see how this all that different from the gunners on an AC-130 who watch everything they shoot. It's not all fire and forget pushbutton in the Air Force. Sounds just like an old problem in a new role, not much worth noting. Killing people isn't supposed to be fun or normal, that's not news.

Re:People should search for AC-130 videos

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:People should search for AC-130 videos

I do think that killing without being at risk yourself is new and different. Also going from kill mode to dinner with the family within such a short amount of time and knowing that you're doing it again the next day is probably very new. Typically for US military it's like a whole other life if for no other reason than the travel between the battlefield and home.

Re:People should search for AC-130 videos

The difference is the UAV operators do that and then drive home to their families. When people are deployed there is an insulation from "normal" life during the deployment. That's the difference and that's what the AF fears is a problem.

When you're stuck in the sandbox for 3 months, you get wound up, do your duty, then unwind and come home. That cycle is happening daily instead of over a 90-120 day period.

Welcome to warfare

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.

Here's an idea

Rather than spending a fortune on shrinks, why not hire a programmer instead? Just have the display overlay something like, oh... 'Direct Hit! 10,000' when the bomb goes off. And keep a high score. That'll help the pilot achieve the necessary mental disconnect between his own actions and the gruesome fate of the people on the ground, and enable him to defend our freedom much more effectively without unfortunate side-effects like conscience or remorse.

Bonus points for hitting weddings, Chinese embassies, and British armoured columns.

Everyday..

Everyday, we closer to Ender's Game.

Apparently, the solution is to recruit kids and tell them it's just a video game.

~Aero

You're not wrong.

I like to think that at some point in human history we'll look back at the wars and realize that 100% of the kills were team kills.

But perhaps that perspective just isn't ready for the world yet.

Now here's an idea

I completely believe that these UAV pilots experience stress from, well, killing people.

My idea is this: now that the U.S. military has the technology to kill people from halfway across the globe without exposing the pilot to physical danger, let's let the President sit next to the pilot and push the button for a couple of those missions, then sit there and watch the blood and destruction.

I think this should be a mandatory experience for anyone who has the authority to order an attack. Military officers have a good chance of having fought in combat already; now let's let the President experience killing an enemy and watching him die. Then we'll see whether his attitude toward using military force displays a little more, let's say, maturity.

Purpose

It seems to me that if we had a more solid purpose for fighting, then this wouldn't be nearly the concern that is indicated in the summary. Let's say a hostile foreign army invaded US soil. Do you think that people fighting that army, that army which directly threatens their homes and their children and their homeland, would have such concerns about the casualties they have to inflict?

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?

Re:Purpose

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.

Upon further reflection...

Considering that pilots in theater spend their off hours with other people in theater, who share in the same situation, while UAV pilots (in Utah) go home to their spouse and kids and I can see a potential need for them to have someone to talk to.

It's *not* like a normal battle

I think the point a lot of posters are missing is that this is a different kind of combat. Normally, battle is kill or be killed. Even in cases where the odds are grossly one-sided (say, an AC-130 gunship verses ground troops) there is still an element of danger for both sides. (You never know when a missle might pop up, or anti-air, or even a plane crash)

The soldiers I've known have been big on honor. And while I'm not saying any way flying a drone is dishonorable, it's a lot harder to justify internally on an instinctual "if I don't kill him, I would have been killed" level. It's like being a sniper, except without the personal risk.

Re:No Taste for Armageddon?

Damn... what's the point of having a technology sufficiently far advanced that you can conduct a remote-control war if the button-pushing still results in some kind of scarring, albeit emotional?

The point could end up being "don't kill anyone unless you absolutely have to, because the cost is too high otherwise." Which would be a very good point to learn I think.

Re:No Taste for Armageddon?

Might as well just send in the pikemen...

Be careful, sometimes they can beat battleships ;)

Re:Hmmmm

And I'm sure you could deal with your kids asking you every night at dinner why you have a thousand yard stare...if you are even home for dinner, granting the length of these missions. My father did 26 years in the AF flying F16s, F117s, and Predators. The only combat and killing he did was in predators. It affected him, I know. Maybe not as much as his friends who flew above convoys under attack and watched powerlessly from above in F16s with enough munitions to wipe out the whole area but couldn't because they aren't mindless killing machines. If you really think that its that simple and that easy then you are horrendously mistaken.