Soldier Suicide - Searching for a better way out?

After taking a look at "typical" America (especially if it was at a town like Newtown, CT), one probably wouldn't immediately guess that we're a country involved in multiple wars. Sure, we hear the news reports, but we don't really know what's going on. Sure, we hear about the casualties, and sure, we regret them, but on a day to day basis, the wars we're fighting don't affect us at home to the extent that some of our past fights have.

Maybe that's part of the reason why so many soldiers are seeking suicide.

According to a report by the U.S. Army released on Thursday, suicide levels in the Army have steadily increased over the last four years, reaching the highest level in three decades. In 2008, at least 128 soldiers took their own lives (possibly 143 - 15 deaths are still under investigation), and for the first time since the Vietnam War, the Army suicide rate (now 20.2%) has exceeded the civilian suicide rate (19.2%). 30% of the suicides took place in deployment, 35% after deployment, and 35% without deployment.

Honestly, the extent of suicide in the army doesn't shock me. If the soldiers in the Middle East share the opinions of many Americans do back home, they probably feel like they're fighting a hopeless fight. The general lack of support for the war can't be encouraging either. With alternatives like death on the battlefield, post-traumatic stress disorder, depression, alcohol abuse, and family problems, suicide probably seems appealing to soldiers who've lost friends and comrades, or who dread the whole ordeal.

It was reported in the article that Pete Geren, secretary of the Army, said the Army was trying to increase measures to prevent future suicides. They're hiring more general practitioners, mental health care providers, and are planning a "stand-down" day to address recognizing and treating suicidal behavior. Honestly, though, there's only so much the Army itself can do. I mean, war is a depressing thing, and you can't force people to seek help. And as Lizett Alvarez, the author of the article, pointed out, "... a warrior culture that discorages treatment persists."

Needless to say, this is a tough topic to report on. As a news story, Alvarez did a good job in getting the important facts across, early in the article, without personal commentary. But it seemed to me that in her efforts to remain objective in reporting facts without drawing conclusions, her language was a little choppy. Naturally, the story will never read as smoothly as a feature article on a topic such as this, which would probably interview family members or soldiers themselves to look at a more personal side of the issue. But Alvarez's transitions between paragraphs and ideas were unnecessarily abrupt (for example, inserting statistics about marriage status of suicide victims and 2007 suicide statistics in unseemly places), even given the nature of her article.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/30/us/30suicide.html?_r=1&ref=us

So on Monday, the Senate agreed to seat Roland Burris, who was appointed by Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich to fill Obama's vacant Senate seat.

I'm not exactly sure how I feel about the Senate's decision. They decided to seat Burris after reviewing "new credentials presented today" and because he agreed to testify against Blagojevich in his impeachment. I'm curious to know what new credentials were presented to justify his appointment. What could the man have done in the past month or so that would be significant enough for the Senate to review it and decide to seat him?

Also, I'm not an expert on Blagojevich's impeachment, but if Burris was connected enough with him to make a valuable testimony against him, wouldn't that also imply that he is guilty of participating in the corrupt exchange? I guess the Senate doesn't have any constitutional right to fill Obama's vacancy, and they would have to wait until the next governor of Illinois was sworn in to get a new senator. And, after all, he's one man of 100 - it's not the absolute end of the world to have a senator you don't agree with represent you. Accepting Burris was probably the most practical option, even if not everyone is happy about it.

Personally, I think the Blagojevich scandal should prompt the states to amend their state constitutions, or Congress to amend the US Constitution, and establish that Senate vacancies be filled by some sort of vote. Putting that much power of appointment in the hands of an individual obviously is putting too much faith in his/her moral conscience, and is a problem that needs to be remedied.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/12/burris.senate/index.html?section=cnn_latest