Combat Stress Is Not Cowardice

[thedrifter]

01-06-2004

Combat Stress Is Not Cowardice







By Ralf W. Zimmermann



The Army’s irrational handling of the legal case involving Staff Sgt. Georg-Andreas Pogany came as quite a surprise. After Army officials initially charged him with cowardice in November after an incident in Iraq, officials suddenly downgraded the case to the lesser charge of dereliction of duty.



Now it seems that the case might be dropped entirely – possibly the best solution to end this soap opera.



Knowing quite a few Special Forces troops, I’ve always been impressed by their common sense and exemplary professionalism. SF troops are the tip of our spear and can’t afford to have slackers amongst them. So what went wrong with Pogany? Why was this NCO branded a coward, a charge worthy of the death penalty during wartime? Is someone who admits to being in a state of shock and confusion really a coward?



Looking at the case with some objectivity, it appears the problem doesn’t merely reside with a highly overburdened SF chain or a suspect malaria drug. The problem arrows point more likely to a crappy assignment and stabilization system. Just look at the facts.



Pogany was a former Navy reservist who joined the Army five years ago. A military intelligence NCO with a criminology degree, he could hardly be described as a full-blooded and qualified Special Operator or a hardened warfighter. Neither could it be said he had a predisposition for cowardice.



Pogany states that in September 2003, he got a call to cut short his leave and join a company of Special Forces in Iraq. He duly reported for duty. The day after he arrived in Iraq, he experienced a serious trauma during the five-hour horror trip to reach his base camp when another soldier dragged the shredded body of a dead Iraqi in front of him. At the sight of all the blood and guts, Pogany broke down and requested psychological help.



The next morning, while awaiting a mission assignment Pogany, who was shaking and throwing up, told his superior that he needed help. He was subsequently ordered to turn over his weapon, and a unit chaplain referred him to a Combat Stress Management Team, which filed a report describing Pogany as showing “signs and symptoms consistent with those of a normal combat-stress reaction.”



His immediate superiors reacted with disgust for the newbie. He later said he was told, “Get over it, or go home.” The next day, Pogany was moved to a larger post for counseling – the right thing to do – for the sergeant and for his unit. Sadly, his SF commander lost his patience a bit early and decided to ship Pogany back to the United States to stand trial under the serious – and rarely imposed – charge of cowardice.



The Pogany incident made me reflect on my old man’s World War II experience and leadership then. An eighteen-year-old tank gunner, he and his crew were involved in a highly intense firefight. The Russians had attacked in waves, my father and his crew firing into the masses with every available weapon. It wasn’t pretty.



Having brought the attack to a standstill, the Panzers counterattacked, rolling straight through piles of dead bodies. During the first maintenance halt after stabilizing the situation, the crew had to free the drive sprocket of wire, rocks and – body parts.



My father later admitted to his company commander and tank commander that he had thrown up and had shaky knees. The commander nodded to him, indicating that he understood. He patted every crewman on the back and even helped to get the job finished. The commander then passed a bottle of brandy and his last cigarettes to his men.



The result: The Panther tank was soon battle ready and the crew fought on. My father completed over 100 engagements, was wounded several times and survived the war as a decorated tank commander and platoon leader – the result of compassionate up-front and personal leadership.



Looking at the whole picture, it appears that Pogany wasn’t prepared for frontline deployment, especially with an elite unit. Instead of recommending a court-martial, the soldier’s chain of command should have arranged for treatment and then a transfer to another outfit. Another option could have been to grow him into his new outfit by giving him another chance during a less critical mission.



Sadly, the unit opted to immediately reject him.



The decision to drop the cowardice and dereliction of duty charges was on target. Pogany himself has declined to undergo an Article 15 hearing, pressing for a court-martial that he says is the only way he can be fully exonerated.



Although Pogany’s chain of command will probably feel the need to save face after all of the negative publicity, I believe the Army will make the right call in the case in the end.



What should be done? Stop the bureaucratic drill on all sides and complete Pogany’s treatment and counseling. Put the NCO back on orders to Iraq, Afghanistan or even better – Bosnia. Let him prove himself in an assignment that best utilizes his talents. After all, he is fluent in Hungarian and German – not Arabic!



The lesson for the Army as a whole is obvious: Combat proves that being all you can be isn’t as easy as the slogan sounds. At minimum, the Army should ensure that all soldiers being sent to a war zone such as Iraq have adequate indoctrination and training to prepare them for the “shock and awe” of such gory sights. The Army should also do a better job at testing and classifying people for the right assignments, before ending up with superfluous legal cases like this one.



Contributing Editor Lt. Col. (U.S. Army, ret.) Ralf W. Zimmermann is a decorated Desert Storm veteran and former tank battalion commander. Since his retirement, his columns have regularly appeared in Army Times and other publications. His recent novel, “Brotherhood of Iron,” deals with the German soldier in World War II. It is directly available from www.iUniverse.com and through most major book dealers. Zimm can be reached at r6zimm@earthlink.net or via his website at www.home.earthlink.net/~r6zimm.

http://www.sftt.org/cgi-bin/csNews/c...85072008913187


Sempers,

Roger

[greybeard]

Two sides to look at I think. The army of one being all they can be? On one hand, he's been in the miltary for over 5 yrs, counting his Navy Reserve time. He should expect to see combat eventually-it's what armies do. Maybe he expected to spend his entire career as a remf?

OTOH, I think he is unfit to be a soldier, and I use the term soldier as all inclusive. Since he evidently can't be useful in combat and all it's ugliness, he is now unfit for service and should be discharged as such. It's not fair for him to sit in garrison
duty while someone else has to take his place in battle. Perhaps Col Zimmerman is comfortable with the prospect of some of the army being given combat duty while others sit out on the sidelines, but I'm not. This is setting an uncomfortable precedence in my opinion.

I'd like to see exactly how the author thinks this can be accomplished:

"At minimum, the Army should ensure that all soldiers being sent to a war zone such as Iraq have adequate indoctrination and training to prepare them for the “shock and awe” of such gory sights."

I don't think there is any sure indoctrination to prepare one for such things. . It's what makes combat a thing to avoid unless neccessary. It's supposed to be messy, gory, and repugnant. Just accept it and keep going. I didn't like what I sometimes saw, but I lived with it just as many here did. Hope I never have to see anything close to it again too. This individual may or may not have been a coward, but he should have stayed under the civilian porch with the other civilian pups, where he didn't have to view such things firsthand.

What ya wanna bet, before this guy got to Iraq, he portrayed himself as the meanest, nastiest, most bloodthirsty war monger of all times to his friends back home??

If I've stirred the pot any---my work here is done.

[LONEEAGLE]

I totally disagree with you GreyBeard....I seen some super nasty stuff when I first got to Nam. I had three troops that went a bit "NUTSOID" when they seen their first combat.....I tried to help them...but I finally had them go to sick-bay. And they never returned. Were they cowards? Heck no....They just couldn't handle it. Then I seen and heard the opposite. I trained with this one Marine. A "SNIPER." I was on patrol, Recon, and told to go to this field unit's area, as they needed us to work with them. I called his name. He turned around, and the look on his face would scare the hell out of ya. He had bloodthirst. He had killed several, and wanted more. He never spoke, just walked away from this outfit, and disappeared into the jungle. Another man I met in a Group, told his story to lawyers who took on his case, free, to get him a General Discharge, instead of a Dishonorable dishcarge. He was locked up in a "CONUS" box, after his men and him captured some NVA. He took his K-Bar, and while the NVA soldier was tied and kneeling, ran it threw his eyeball and killed him. The he also got the "BLOOD THIRSTY" want. He'd sneak out at night, and go to villages where he knew VC/NVA were. And would kill as many as he could. And us who thought we could and did, suffered later with the after effects of the war. Let me pose a question to ya?
I'm totally disabled with PTSD. Am I a coward too? I do agree with you that there is nothin' even pictures that can prepare you for what you'll see in "WAR." No endoctrination prior to goin' into combat can help. They, at Staging Bn., when we went thru so called training, had returning Nam Vets givin' classes. They wouldn't talk about the "REALITY" of what to expect to see, do, witness. It's like this in my way of thinking. If a man who has never, (this includes Women too) doesn't have the ability, mentally, emotionally, to see the undescribeable aftermaths of a person/person's who've been butchered, killed, it isn't their fault. He did the right thing. And for any Armed Forces that, especially the "CORPS", can't see that the "MAN" tried, but lost it, and wants to charge him with "COWARDICE", are non-compassionate of their fellow bretheran in uniform. Some can never do it. I disagree with you also, with respect, that I doubt if he was one who told people about his "WANTFULLNESS" to go into combat and be one mean dude. It doesn't fit the profile. Too many times, WWII, Korea, men I know have told me, they had to be taken out for awhile....But returned either to a combat position or desk duty. With tremendous respect to your opinion, ask any shrink, psychologist, if there's any way any Armed Services can determine whether or not a "SOLDIER/SAILOR/MARINE/AIR FORCE" "PERSON" is capable of combat? My Cousin was a Korean Vet. He told stories, not of what he did, but what an entire unit did. They came under heavy shelling by the North. They ran like scared "RABBIT'S" he told me, including him. Does this make you a coward? No, I don't think so. It's a natural reaction to an unatural death threatening event. I don't think the NCO, was afraid, or he wouldn't have went. It's when he seen, it made him go into shock, or whatever. It's just one that got attention, because he wasn't afraid of sayin', "I need help." How many times have you awakened with cold sweats, can't sleep, drink the thoughts away? Stay away from the masses? Even in combat, during a "lull" were you not able to sleep, concentrate, and were so afraid? I wouldn't have thought less of you because you asked to get help....I've talked to so many "NAM VETS" combat/non-combat, whom have said; "I got PTSD", but I'll never admit it. Nobody had to take his place. There's always another to fill in the gap, for the wounded, killed. Now I've stirred the pot, and with respect to you and the writer, I hope this will show the other side, and that not all people are, "HARDCORE!!" God
Bless us all. Semper-Fi.

[yellowwing]

Dang Big Eagle, that's the best thing I've seen written here in a long time. Outstanding.

I firmly beleive that we do have our own society. The press and the public can be our best friends or worst detractors. They cheer us for quick victories, but sneer when we pin our brothers with para wings. If we didn't have each other, we'd all go nutzoid.

[greybeard]

Did you read this part of my post? I never said he was a coward.

"This individual may or may not have been a coward, but he should have stayed under the civilian porch with the other civilian pups, where he didn't have to view such things firsthand."

We're speaking of this individual. He was in the Army Special Forces. Not right out of boot camp, but a 5 yr veteran. No doubt, he had to have considered that eventually he would wind up in combat. As I said above, I don't think there is any indoctrination that can prepare a person 100% for the carnage. But, once a person decides, or has it decided for him, that he can't handle it, get him out of the armed forces. A standing force that contains elements can't fight is not doing anyone any good.

It's not for me to say whether he was a coward or not, I ain't inside his brain & don't want to be--but the fact is, that he was unable to do his job. He couldn't take care of himself and couldn't take care of his fellow soldiers in this situation, so he needs to be removed from that responsibility. By allowing him to remain at a secure, safe, desk job, it sets a precedent. Anyone who wants the secure paycheck, education benefits, medical benefits etc will be able to just say "I can't handle combat-let me stay home in the states and let me have it easy till I retire." This was one of the reasons that caused the draft during Vietnam. Many people decided they did not want to join or fight, so they sat it out and their replacements came in the form of draftees. What you are advocating, is to allow anyone who wants to be able to--to shirk their duty, not on moral grounds, but on psychological grounds. If given a choice, most would choose a year in Calif over a year in Vietnam or Iraq. What if this individual had made into his assigned companywithout witnessing the gory sight that sent him over the edge? Only when he saw combat on the company level would his problem have become evident. Not much help to his buddies in the field.

1. Are we to have a 2 tier military?
1st tier=combatants
2nd tier=non-combatants.

2. This will mean that the combatants will have to rotate back into combat more often, since the pool to draw from is significantly smaller now that some/many have decided it's not for them. How fair is that, and how much does it increase the casualty chances of those who do have to rotate back into the field?

All I'm saying is those that can't make it in combat shouldn't be in the armed forces. It puts their burden on someone else.