I am once again reading trauma (and trauma-related) blogs.  Michael Sullivan's blog, Recall: An Involuntary Soldier's Story, is teaching me a lot about the military.  Though this blog isn't explicitly about PTSD, it does address issues of war, which I believe to be inherently trauma-related.  So here are a few things that I've learned:

From Day 41:

• Some of the sexual assault awareness training provided by the military is woefully lacking in quality.  Apparently, they show soldiers "instructional videos" (much like those we were forced to watch in middle school) to teach them about sexual assault and that these videos are, at best, "corny." 
• The other portion of Sullivan's sexual assault awareness training seems much more effective.  The presenter had them close their eyes and imagine their most recent, pleasurable sexual encounter; then, she instructed them turn to the person next to them and relate that experience.  Everyone was, predictably, uncomfortable. Once the soldiers had stopped giggling, she made the following connection:

"Think about how uncomfortable you are with that.  Now think about how difficult it would be to try to describe your worst experience."  One that was violent, and painful, and against your will.  And you wouldn't have to describe it just once -- you'll probably end up telling the story to your commander, to the military police, to the physicians and nurses at the hospital, to a counselor, to your spouse or loved one, to your family.  Eventually your friends and co-workers will probably find out.  Add all of these factors together, and you can see why so many rapes and sexual assaults end up going unreported.

• Another point that I found interesting was that they gave the soldiers the statistical information regarding sexual assault--that one in six women will be sexually assaulted in their lifetime--but did not give them source information.  Sullivan, quite rightly, questioned the accuracy of the statistic not having been given source information so that he could judge the validity of the information.  So, I looked it up for him and posted the information in a comment.

In Day 44 [Post 2]:

• Sullivan discusses the military's tendency to dehumanize the "enemy" by referring to everyone by a generic name.  For the Iraqis it's "hadji."  Ironically, this is actually a term of respect for someone who has made the pilgrimage to Mecca. [To read more about the use of dehumanizing language as a military strategy, I recommend Carol Cohn's "Sex and Death in the Rational World of Defense Intellectuals."]
• This story about dehumanization, I've taken from the blog:

On a related note, I have a friend named Spurgeon who has been to Iraq a few times now, and on one of those deployments, he found himself in a particularly awkward position.  He was in a house, accompanied by the Iraqi family that owned the home, as well as the squad of Marines who were tasked with "clearing" that house.  Obviously, the Iraqis were poor, but they insisted on offering a portion of their meal to the servicemen.  Spurgeon accepted, but the Marines started shouting at him that the food was poison, and he'd die if he at it.  Spurgeon tried to do what he could to put a positive face on the American military.  He drew a picture and gave it to one of the children.  He ate the food that was offered to him.  He didn't yell or display anger while he was there.  And months later, after he was safe back in the U.S., he couldn't understand why the Marines would behave so antagonistically.  I think it falls under the same category as calling everyone "Hadji."  If they're not one of you, then they don't deserve to be recognized as individual humans.

From Day 46:

• Sullivan's "Amusingly convoluted military euphemism of the day:  suicidal thoughts are known in the Army as 'high-risk thought patterns.'"
• Apparently, suicide prevention training has become standard (big surprise given that more soldiers died from suicide in January than in combat and that the rate of suicide is six times as many as last year).
• During suicide prevention training, when asked what to do if one recognized someone else as having 'high risk thought patterns,' the following ensued:

When the presenter asked for input, someone in my row noted that the platoon sergeant should have asked the soldier to hand over his rifle.  A senior noncommissioned officer was incensed at this answer.  He stood up and motioned for the microphone, and launched a verbal salvo about how taking away a soldier's weapon is the same as taking away his identity, and how the platoon sergeant should have asked a squad leader to escort the soldier instead of doing it himself.  This last step would serve to keep everyone from knowing that the soldier had a problem (which sort of makes sense) and to "preserve the integrity of the NCO Corps" (which doesn't).  His statements generated a loud round of applause, which left me shocked.  As you are no doubt aware by now, I am not a spectacularly empathetic individual.  But if someone tells you that he's thinking about shooting himself in the head, you take away his primary means of shooting himself in the head.  That makes sense, right?