News "Surviving the Game (1994)"

[JEL]

This is not exactly like this movie:

"Surviving the Game (1994)" http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0111323/

But it certainly is no good either:

(These 2 news-links are written in danish language and apparently doesn't have any english translations unfortunately.)
http://jp.dk/indland/article2103862.ece
http://jp.dk/indland/article2102598.ece


I really didn't believe this story when I first heard about it, but I don't know. If it's true I find it really shocking.

Apparently in Denmark several war-veterans are so messed up in their heads that they go live in the forests because they can't get any help from the authorities to live normally.

Ofcourse homelessness in itself is no shocker (which is sad enough though), but because these former soldiers go live in the forests, in mental war-mode, they risk ending up in real dangerous confrontations with hunters (hence the ironic link to the movie "Surviving the Game"). On a danish hunting-site forum some hunters were debating this exact situation, and what they would do etc if it happened to them.

And this just shocks me; instead of proposing help to these people, a representative of the danish military apparently held a meeting with the danish hunting-association(*) to try and get forest-areas set aside for these former soldiers to live in!!. Is that really a solution?? Letting messed up people live on their own in public forests?

(*)Here's the danish quote saying that:

Yvonne Tønnesen har holdt møde med Danmarks Jægerforbund. Hensigten med mødet var at undgå en konfrontation mellem krigsveteraner og jægere og at finde velegnede områder til veteranerne i statsskovene.

Its from http://jp.dk/indland/article2103862.ece

Imagine you're out on a sunday-outing with your family enjoying the calmness of the forest, listening to the birds singing and so on, and then suddenly a crazy soldier in war-mode jumps up with a drawn knife and attacks you or your kids because he thinks you're the taliban or something.

I just can't believe what's happening in Denmark right now (also thinking about that messed up points-system they introduced a few months ago). In a civilized country you can't have people living in the forest like that, can you? I'm really shocked.

Has anyone living in other countries heard something similar happening where they live?

 

[garyw]

You could say that it's inhuman to make me cram into a small metal tube with less space than cattle are allowed to make the 75 minute journey (if it runs to time) to an air conditioned box that's either too hot or too cold. You could also say that's it's inhuman for the Government to step in and take 1/3rd of what I earn.

Sounds to me like living in a jungle is a lot more humane than our 'civilised' society.

 

[Urwumpe]

Sounds a bit too much like "Rambo" (the only movie, not the illegitimate copies that followed).

We have problems with PTSD and soldiers requiring more psychological aid than what the army can offer, but no such problems. Usually the system works here, there are only few that are really left out.

 

[Quick_Nick]

It seems a bit like recent issues with indigenous individuals discovered within rain forests. People try to approach them, but it's generally better for everyone if they are left alone. (a section of forest set aside) The people in the forest would probably be much happier to stay there, and an intruder could be killed by conflict.

 

[jedidia]

not really the same situation. I totally agree that the indeginous in the rain forest are best left alone (which unfortunately they aren't, because they're bad for buisness. The guys responsible for cutting down the forrests usually drop generous quantities of cheap alcohol in front of their doorsteps and the "problem" resolves itself rather quickly).

What we have here arepeople indeginous to our culture, but they have become unfit to live in it because of a service they did for their gouvernement. I don't think these people are exactly happy having their minds trapped in a past war. They might be happier in the forrests than they are in civilisation, but they certainly would be still happier if they could be released from their entrappement.

The question here is, of course, is the condition curable and under which circumstances (this should not be considered brainwashing, much more reverting to a state they where brought out of by intense traumata, which we can savely consider a healing in any meaning of the word).
If the condition is uncurable, well, we got ourselfes a problem. If it is curable, we got ourselves some expenses, which are certainly not welcome to the gouvernement, but they are obliged to do it none the less. They sent those people to war, they are responsible for bringing them back from it. body and mind.

Also, there's a question that pops up: Is Danish military mixed in gender? If it is, it might well be that if you dump them in a forest in sufficient numbers, you'll have a now truly indeginous savage culture there in 150 years or so... I don't think you'd want that.

 

[Ghostrider]

Also, there's a question that pops up: Is Danish military mixed in gender? If it is, it might well be that if you dump them in a forest in sufficient numbers, you'll have a now truly indeginous savage culture there in 150 years or so... I don't think you'd want that.

Danish amazons roaming the countryside looking for fit males to repopulate the species? I'm so totally OK with the concept.

 

[JEL]

it's generally better for everyone if they are left alone. (a section of forest set aside) The people in the forest would probably be much happier to stay there, and an intruder could be killed by conflict.

Assuming you're serious about this idea and not just 'putting me on' (the idea of setting up a forest reservation for former soldiers that are mentally ill where they can roam freely); how do you envision it?

A fenced-in area? Should it be prohibited for the normal public to enter into this area, or maybe an 'enter-at-own-risk' area? Should it be a free-zone void of any rule or law? Who's going to own the area?

We have problems with PTSD and soldiers requiring more psychological aid than what the army can offer, but no such problems. Usually the system works here, there are only few that are really left out.

How easy would it be to hide in German forests if there were former soldiers who wanted to? I guess what I'm asking is; are you sure you don't have the same trend but just don't know about it because Germany is larger than Denmark?

If the condition is uncurable, well, we got ourselfes a problem. If it is curable, we got ourselves some expenses, which are certainly not welcome to the gouvernement, but they are obliged to do it none the less. They sent those people to war, they are responsible for bringing them back from it. body and mind.

Well, the government doesn't seem to have any obligations to secure their population's health. Homelessness, for example, is largely ignored as being people's own problem. So I guess you could say that also applies to former soldiers. No one forced them to go to war, so it's their own fault if they come back screwed up, you might say.

But it will obviously be a problem if they start to run around in public forests and attack random people because the war messed them up and they got addicted to killing taliban (two polls yesterday claimed that 30 percent of the danish soldiers described killing as 'feeling very good', and that 85 percent of them want to stay at war rather than go home to normal life). Then it's no longer just their own problem.

Link to those polls (unfortunately these are also danish language only): http://nyhederne.tv2.dk/article.php/id-36324222:soldater-en-god-følelse-at-dræbe.html?forside
http://nyhederne.tv2.dk/article.php/id-36304041:soldater-behold-os-i-afghanistan.html

Also, there's a question that pops up: Is Danish military mixed in gender? If it is, it might well be that if you dump them in a forest in sufficient numbers, you'll have a now truly indeginous savage culture there in 150 years or so... I don't think you'd want that.

Danish amazons roaming the countryside looking for fit males to repopulate the species? I'm so totally OK with the concept.

Yeah, maybe that could actually work

 

[Urwumpe]

How easy would it be to hide in German forests if there were former soldiers who wanted to? I guess what I'm asking is; are you sure you don't have the same trend but just don't know about it because Germany is larger than Denmark?

Easily. I do it pretty often, since I like going offroad when I need a creative break. You can walk for a whole day without seeing any human or being seen. And there are many places where you can get a safe hidden place to sleep, if you wanted to.

But nobody would say, we give the soldiers this forest so they can keep fighting their wars there. It is a wrong kind of logic. They need help by other humans, not forests. Not even professional psychologists. Just people with whom they can share their nightmares without feeling more miserable. Wifes or neighbors can hardly understand that. They are already entering a different world when German soldiers meet at a party and form small closed groups of those, who know.

Maybe it needs some explanation, it is all about the draft:

The draft is something that will be badly missed, since this week had been the last week when people had been drafted into the German army. A historic day, sure. Necessary, sure. But it also dislodges the army from the society. Not as in parallel societies, that are often feared, but it is about integration. Today you can find generations of soldiers in every place of the country. From managers to unemployed. Politicians and NGOs. Without it, I fear that soldiers will become rare, and far more uniform in their careers. Today you can still have a short stay in the army, but soon they will only hire people who get the full training which takes years. You will soon only meet soldiers in soldier careers. Maybe 12 years in the army, then inside one of the engineering or weapon production companies that have a interest in getting soldiers for their experience.


Also, another thing in the german army,that is pretty unique, is the status of chaplains... they are civilians that are educated by the big churches, but serve deeply integrated into the army system, with a lot of power and independence, which makes them really trustworthy and some sort of the better psychologists for many soldiers. I know many people who would talk about a nightmare mission rather with their chaplain, than with the psychologist, even though those people are pretty much atheist. Chaplains are not "them". They simply are there. And nobody really wonders if you talk to them, since chaplains also come to you. There will be no talking about it. Going to a psychologist means you have to say that you are ill, which is a major bureaucratic issue and not easily done in a world in which you are expected to be stronger than all. But if you spend your free time talking to a chaplain, it will not stir things. You could be just having a beer with your chaplain. Even if this just gives you the courage to go to a psychologist eventually.

My personal experience with chaplains is, that they are not only better knowing about the abyss that awaits soldiers in "war-like situations", but also have absolutely no problem warning recruits about the reality that comes. Army psychologists are also soldiers that have to follow orders from superior officers...chaplains not: their supreme commander is easier reached than a general and does also give more answers than a general.

 

[jedidia]

Well, the government doesn't seem to have any obligations to secure their population's health.

I generally agree, but a soldier is in gouvernement service, doing a gov's job, carrying out a gov's orders. Certainly an employer can be held responsible for permanent damage a worker receives while doing his Job!

their supreme commander is easier reached than a general and does also give more answers than a general.

ROFLMAO! :lol:

Still drafting in switzerland, although by now you can at least choose between military service and civil service, a choice for which you had to go through difficult procedures with uncertain outcomes in the past. But still, only mandatory for males. No feminist has tackled this discrimination yet (they were fast enough to establish equal chances of career advancements for the genders, but not to make it mandatory for both genders. Typical!)

 

[Urwumpe]

I generally agree, but a soldier is in gouvernement service, doing a gov's job, carrying out a gov's orders. Certainly an employer can be held responsible for permanent damage a worker receives while doing his Job!

That is why I have the deepest respect for those politicians in the USA, who fought for the compensation for the 9/11 rescuers despite the idiotic resistance against it. I can understand if you want to haggle about the money for getting the optimum. But some people made it look like these rescuers are turned into millionaires for just sitting in their fire departments when hell broke loose.

My personal opinion is: When a whole country sends citizens into war as their duty, the duty of the country is to care for those citizens at all the consequences that their decision has. If somebody died in Afghanistan for preventing terrorists from getting easily into your country again, it is your moral duty to make sure that the family of the soldier/relief worker/medic/etc is compensated properly for the loss.

Not just cheated away, while a few cowards at wall street get made richer and richer for their incompetence. That is so wrong, that it already smells.

 

[JEL]

Easily. I do it pretty often, since I like going offroad when I need a creative break. You can walk for a whole day without seeing any human or being seen. And there are many places where you can get a safe hidden place to sleep, if you wanted to.

But nobody would say, we give the soldiers this forest so they can keep fighting their wars there. It is a wrong kind of logic. They need help by other humans, not forests. Not even professional psychologists. Just people with whom they can share their nightmares without feeling more miserable. Wifes or neighbors can hardly understand that. They are already entering a different world when German soldiers meet at a party and form small closed groups of those, who know.

I think you may be touching one of the key-reasons that returning soldiers sometimes break down; they can't find the same... what word is best fitting here... sense of togetherness, belonging, family, community... that they get on station in the extreme conditions of war. I think that could account for some of the 85 percent 'no-to-go-home' votes the recent danish poll showed. It may not be the shooting or killing they get addicted to, but rather to their tight-knit 'camaraderie' and fellowship.

I'm pretty sure nothing much can compare with what they experience on duty in actual REAL combat, and that may be why they feel empty when coming back to civilization.

I think the only way to combat that side-effect, would be if they didn't get too close to each-other while on duty. Hardly do-able in any easy way though, but that would likely break those emotional attachments that they build up during war-duty and make sure they didn't have anything to miss when coming back home.

The moment they've shared a life-experience that sets them apart from 'normal' people they will always be 'different'. And it's hardly surprising that that could lead to some of them feeling left-out from society when they return to it after fighting.

At any rate, I hope that's what it is I would certainly feel a lot better about that scenario than if 85 percent of them actually miss the killing-part. Hoping for the best in humans

I'm opposed to the draft myself, but your point is valid. A pro-army will un-doubtedly lead to less coherence, or 'brotherly feeling', with the 'normal' public. Kind of like it does with the pro-police (they're certainly not too welcome in the rear-view mirror )

I don't have any experience with army-chaplains, but whatever, or who-ever, improves the lives of anyone involved in all this unwanted nastiness of war is obviously part of the good stuff.
War is certainly not desirable.

a soldier is in gouvernement service, doing a gov's job, carrying out a gov's orders. Certainly an employer can be held responsible for permanent damage a worker receives while doing his Job!

That's generally true in my opinion to.

But I don't think a soldier, or for example a police-officer, can sue the state for compensation relating to mental illness or physical harm following 'enemy-induced' effects of their job. If their given equipment fails the state can be held responsible, but if an 'enemy-contact' leads to a soldier breaking down the state can not be held responsible since the state doesn't control the 'enemy'.

A soldier already receives imminent danger pay ($225 a month) (which is a bit like playing the lottery in a sense). They can use that to save up to pay for new prosthetic limbs or psychiatrists etc (which will ofcourse take a while, unless you have good insurance, considering the price-range of prosthetic limbs)
The reason I call it a kind of lottery is because you get this pay even if you don't end up actually needing it.

 

[orbitingpluto]

I think the only way to combat that side-effect, would be if they didn't get too close to each-other while on duty. Hardly do-able in any easy way though, but that would likely break those emotional attachments that they build up during war-duty and make sure they didn't have anything to miss when coming back home.

The moment they've shared a life-experience that sets them apart from 'normal' people they will always be 'different'. And it's hardly surprising that that could lead to some of them feeling left-out from society when they return to it after fighting.

Your good intentions in solving one mess could lead to a worse one. Being 'in combat' must cause some powerful emotional effects (I'm basing this on stuff I read and heard BTW), and even if you don't know the guy standing next to you; if you survive that experience together you are marked by the same tumultuous event. I don't think veterans group up with other veterans after the war because they miss the war or the camaraderie they had, but because they seen things they think nobody else can understand but someone who was there. It's not the friendship that bought them close, but the war they saw together. The things they went through bind them like a death of a family member or the fellow participators in an act 'normal' society abhors. Remember, they might have seen people die on their side, and might have killed someone themselves. Its because this shared paradoxical hell that they existed in that they can't find comfort in society at large. Removing the 'we' from a person in combat would leave them alone in a confused and emotionally charged environment. Having strong bonds with other veterans is a coping mechanism that helps them survive the war. After the war they don't have access that mechanism, so they are stuck on there own, reliving the nightmares among people whom they can't relate to because those people are the 'normal' people; the normal folk who didn't live in a combat zone. Not having someone who 'knows' be there for you is terrible, and making it harder to have these people there would make it harder on the veterans. Police form groups for some of same reasons, although they don't have to travel as far to see violence and most don't see as much as it, luckily.

 

[JEL]

I'm not an Afghanistan-war veteran myself, so i wont presume to know what drives this group of people. But I'm not sure how to feel about it when 85 percent of them say they prefer not to come home from the war, and 30 percent say killing feels good. I don't like those numbers actually. Killing feels good?? That's just crazy and demented in my opinion. I just have the general feeling that a soldier should always wish to come home rather than wish to stay in a war-zone. I prefer soldiers who dislike war at all times.

Anyway, the reasons you give paints a fairly grim picture I think, of ever having soldiers return from combat to normal non-war life.

 

[orbitingpluto]

I'm not a veteran either, so most my info comes from reading and listening to the people who are there or have been there. I am focusing on the problem cases, so most of what I write here doesn't apply to most people. Edit: I forgot to add I'm not involved in treating returning veterans, so don't get the idea I know know what I'm talking about. I just got interested about what it is like for soldiers to return after being at war and researched and read and talked to people to find out./Edit

One problem is most people who sign up for service(at least in the US, though I think it applies elsewhere too) do so because of the lack of better opportunities in employment. Getting out, they are back to square one with the often difficult to deal with physical and/or emotional impacts of a war. That might explain why 85 percent in that poll wanted to stay at war: at least they are fed and get wages. That is real driving force behind this, is the state of the economy, and if going home meant reducing your standard of living you would stay where life is (relatively speaking) better. And they have a supportive group that accepts them too(their military buddies). The adrenalin combined the busy pace of military life, a soldier feels better mentally even when he shouldn't because the problems are pushed into the back round. If another soldier notices his buddy is stressed, he doesn't make a stink of it because he is in the same boat: he helps the guy out and moves on. Getting out means dealing with those problems for the first time, and some of the stuff may have happened early in deployment, making it awkward to explain to family or civilian friends why it started messing with you now. It might be extremely hard to even be ready to explain, as talking about it means breaking down the walls of 'just ignoring it'. Some people re-enlist rather than do something about their problems, they adapted to 'just ignore it' and don't want to change fearing what would happen if they try to deal with it. I want to say that for most it isn't like this at all, but I don't have any hard data on 'happiness after the war' figures. I believe that most adapt with only a few problems, so hiding in the woods isn't something going to typical for most returnees.

The thing about the 30 percent who polled saying they enjoy killing: I think it demented and crazy too, and I can't think of any reason to explain that beyond those 30 percent have either had serious problems going in or spent too much time in the field with little time to change gears. It is disturbing to think about, and I hope the poll was inaccurate.

 

[Tommy]

I'll add my two cents here, as a veteran of the US Army.

This kind of thing (soldiers "hiding out" in the woods) has happened here in the US before. It wasn't common after WWII, or even the Korean "Peace Action", but it happened after Vietnam. I think it happened then, and is happening again, because the reasons behind the conflict are almost purely political - not based on a clear need.

With WWII, there was a clear threat. Hitler's Germany and Japan were clearly bent on World Domination, so fighting that was clearly needed. Korea was a bit less clear, but it was the height of the "Cold War" and stopping the "Red Menace" seemed essential to most soldiers.

In Vietnam, it became obvious that the war was driven by a political agenda. Rules were in place that prevented US forces from effectively fighting - "No going into Cambodia" (at least officially), etc. The answer to the question "Why are we fighting this war" was much less clear, and soldiers who returned were often scorned as "baby-killers" rather than "Heroes".

This is even more the case in Afghanistan and Iraq. I hesitate to start a forum-war, but any intelligent person who really looks at the history and actions of these wars has to realize that they weren't started for the reasons given by the US government.

In Afghanistan, no real effort was made to secure the southern part of the country (and that's why the south is still the center of Taliban resistance). After all, the proposed oil pipeline goes through Northern Afghanistan, not Southern Afghanistan.

In Iraq, there was solid intel that there were NO WMD's, but Iraq sits on top of the largest oil reserve in the world.

In short, the US used "terrorism" as a bogeyman to help coerce other counties into a "Coalition" who's only real purpose was to advance US commercial interests.

I'm not saying that the Taliban or Saddam were "good guys" in any way, but the US routinely ignores - if not aids - far worse people. These "wars" aren't about right and wrong - they are about control and profit.

Soldiers want to save the World - or at least save their own country. They are prepared to do whatever it takes to do that - even things (like killing other people) they wouldn't do for any other reason.

When they come to realize that they have been used - not to save the world - but to save some corporation's bottom line, they feel betrayed. Not just by the government, but by the very society which created the government.

I haven't been to war, but I worked in Law Enforcement (in the US Army). That was over twenty years ago, but I still categorize people into three groups. Cops, Criminals, and Civilians. I was a Cop, but feel I have more in common with Criminals than I do Civilians. While Cops and Criminals may see the conflict from opposing sides, at least they see the conflict. Civilians just don't "get it", don't see the conflict the same way that both Cops and Criminals do.

We see this problem (with veterans becoming disillusioned with society) here in the US. How much worse is it for people from other counties who realize that they weren't "Saving The World", just doing a political system's dirty work - and not even their own political system, but someone elses?

As for the government/society's responsibility toward it's solders, it is paramount. In a volunteer military, the Soldier accepts the RISK of injury - not the RESPONSIBILITY. The government/society that sends it's soldiers into combat should be responsible for the injuries (physical OR mental) suffered by it's soldiers. Injured soldiers feel disconnected from their society because society is composed mostly of civilians who are incapable of truly understanding the issues - and cannot relate. They need to be able to talk to others who do understand, and can relate. They need counsel, not from some PhD that never experienced combat, but by people who HAVE "been there and done that" and learned how to deal with it.

Simply closing off a section of woods and abandoning/exiling the solders won't cut it. Setting aside an area of nature - away from the stresses of modern society - and providing "supervisors" with the experience required to relate to these soldiers until they can re-integrate into society would likely be a step in the right direction. Not letting them withdraw further, but not forcing them back into a society they can't relate to - until they are ready to do so. Nature has an ability to heal, so instead of institutionalizing them in an asylum, give them a place to heal. Provide cabins, food, and therapy that actually helps.

 

[JEL]

I don't know what will best help returning soldiers in need, but like you I just find the idea of leaving people to involuntarily rot and wither away outrageous. Not just for the sake of those in need, but just as much for the sake of those who might end up as involuntary victims of a needy person gone nuts.

As for the government/society's responsibility toward it's solders, it is paramount. In a volunteer military, the Soldier accepts the RISK of injury - not the RESPONSIBILITY. The government/society that sends it's soldiers into combat should be responsible for the injuries (physical OR mental) suffered by it's soldiers.

I hope I don't sound like a cold-hearted bastard here, but isn't the hazard-pay given because any received injury is the soldier's own responsibility? Aren't that, and the various types of tax-breaks and family separation allowance etc, paid on top of the normal salary to make the soldier accept the responsibility of his/her own life-situation?

Assuming responsibility makes you liable, in a judicial sense, IE the counter-part can sue, but as far as I understand a soldier cannot sue the government for reimbursements related to medical bills for new limbs or psychiatric help or other?

In effect the government is buying off their responsibility by paying the soldier all these extras in the form of actual pay and various tax-exemptions. Atleast that's been my general belief up to now, but I don't know if the law actually says something else about this.

In short my understanding is that the normal salary is to get you to accept the risk, while the various perks are to get you to accept responsibility if the risk becomes more than just risk.