The despair in not recognizing that a soldier’s psychology is just like of everyone else poses enormous risk for a professional army. The motives of deterrence and elimination of perceived enemy creates a desire to revenge and acts of retributive violence. Yet most of the superior armies, especially the US views that expanding war zones and drafting young persons to endure all the dangerous and unpleasant experiences in mostly unknown territory, is a genuine military planning to control most resourceful regions of the world.

Long and low-intensity wars can be characterized by irregular and highly variable levels of violence and entails two major interacting effects. It sustains yet disguises both human cost of war. These effects are readily observable in Pakistan where war on terror is ongoing for a decade; some 40,000 people lost their lives including more than 5000 soldiers and security personnel. Despite the ensuing outcry over the loss of billions of dollars, sufferings of thousands of innocent citizens, in truth many in the Western societies are unable to view the psychological sufferings of millions of Pakistanis in war on terror. Indeed the reality for many living in areas affected by drone attacks and terrorism, especially, in the FATA region is that violence is part of their lives at some level. Social attitude and professional behavior of a soldier is another area where the effects of war may be observed. A host of stress and operational related factors are now known to be involved in complex environment of conflict. Comprehending the implications of prolonging an asymmetrical war is underpinned by the advanced role of its key managers. This is particularly the point where it is crucial for military strategists to value the personal mental situation of a soldier. Media contents of killing of innocent women and children by terrorists and in some cases professional soldiers are likely to contribute to heightened psychological stress. Ultimately, consistent media exposure and recalling emotional states during combat operation may re-ignite trauma among combat forces. The psychological consequences of wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and in other parts of the world demonstrate that the US military strategists have failed to grasp accurate psychological condition of their soldiers.

The case in point is are ported fact that due to decade of war and a military burdened with wartime demands from Iraq and Afghanistan, “suicides are surging among America’s troops, averaging nearly one a day this year - the fastest pace in the nation’s decade of war. The 154 suicides for active-duty troops in the first 155 days of the year, [especially when] the military also is struggling with increased sexual assaults, alcohol abuse, domestic violence and other misbehavior”(AP – July 06, 2012). This must be looked as an alarming pattern because it is claimed that “the numbers are rising among the 1.4 million active-duty military personnel despite years of efforts to encourage troops to seek help with mental health problems”.

The reasons for such a dangerous and sensitive situation are not fully understood. But some of the routine explanations are: the tolerance of excessive violence, continuous combat exposure, post-traumatic stress, utilization of extra dosages of medications and problems of family life among soldiers. Jackie Garrick, head of a newly established Defense Suicide Prevention Office at the Pentagon admits that, “We are very concerned at this point that we are seeing a high number of suicides at a point in time where we were expecting to see a lower number of suicides”, she said, adding that “the weak U.S. economy may be confounding preventive efforts even as the pace of military deployments eases”.

Conversely, it is all but clear that soldiers are considered as the toughest fraternity and thus discount the possibility of any mentioning of psychological problems to their commanders or colleagues. One of the major barriers to pinpointing a sign of stress during war is the profound belief in the US military that “seeking help” represents a weakness and thus a formidable threat to professional progress and military career. The stigma associated with seeking help for mental distress is creating two glaring issues for the US military planners. First, a professionally capable soldier to fight insurgency needs more hard training and thereby requirement to pass through stressful field operations. Second, the desire to consolidate the powerful image of a superpower is the primary objective of the US. Thus, it is highly unlikely to claim the most professional army fighting the fourth generation of warfare and still remain clinically detached from routine psychological issues that soldiers face in conflict zones. It is plausible to assume that such patterns could also be detrimental for civil-military relations, as response to indirect effects of not seeking help by soldiers would seriously jeopardize future strategic goals in Afghanistan.

To be concluded, psychological consequences of war on active-duty US soldiers can be greater than reported. While this is just a consideration, the impact of such a scenario can seriously affect the counter-insurgency campaign of the US, NATO and ISAF in Afghanistan, and hence serious error of operational judgment could take place against allay states. Most importantly, building fighting abilities over a consistent stressful behavior and unrealistic tolerance can become a source of internal polarization and considerable tension. Therefore, the realization that a soldier faces significant psychological pressures is akin to a tactical understanding of how fighting war is truly emotionally painful and could become a catalyst for demoralizing a professional army. The matter of suicide among the US soldiers is so serious that the Defense Secretary Leon Panetta termed it as “one of the most complex and urgent problems”. Given the popularity of armed forces in the US, the rise of suicide among the active-duty soldiers is a sensitive matter, especially for the self-esteem of those contemplating to pre-empt attacks on shadowy enemy. Psychologically weak and vulnerable soldiers will have less ability to engage enemy for a longer period of time.

—The author is a Denmark-based National Security Expert Defence Analyst.