Drone Operators with PTSD

So, I was browsing the Internet on lunch while working and I saw this article about Drone operators with PTSD:

http://news.msn.com/in-depth/emotional-toll-taxes-military-drone-operators-too

I was looking for your views on it.

Personally, I entirely disagree. I have had multiple friends of mine who have seen actual combat. I am a keyboard warrior by trait and have seen multiple after effects of ordinance and IEDs on the human body. I have been no worse for the wear, and through good leadership when I was a LCpl with LAR, I learned not to accept the death of our enemies, locals, or even infrastructure with pleasure; I only learned how to be a sturdy professional. I was taught that as long as friendlies were as safe as they could be in combat was the priority.

I know the regret you feel after locals are killed in an event you cannot control. It sucks. But it doesn't keep me up at night. I also know friends, who at 20 years old were imbedded with Recon teams to do "BDA" on enemy fighters. To grunts, this is known as a "dead check" or ensuring that the enemy combatant doesn't need medical attention/isn't playing possum to try to kill again. I know for a fact that I would never claim to have the same mental damage as someone in those shoes. I personally don't believe that this is actually a thing. So, as I said, I'm looking for your input.

I was surprised when I first read about, citing something about how the detachment of deployed combat forces from 'home' allowed the separation to have some value that they could try to put it behind them when they returned.... vs stateside operators have it mixed in with normality, so their normal life becomes contextualized with the experiences - making it hard to put it behind them. I wouldn't have thought it, but if they are in with CAS communications and ordnance delivery in real time it could be emotional and tense protecting friendlies and non-combatants while engaging hostiles one minute, nek minute picking up the kids on the drive home.

This is true, but in a way you have your support net eight hours away after your shift at the office is done. I understand that service members have a switch. Everybody does. It just goes "click" and suddenly you're on. Hard to describe unless you know it. Yet I still am really torn about this article. I guess it's just hard for me to understand.

It's not the experience that is painful, it's the guilt and the questions which come after the experience that are.

E-3_4L_Teeter wrote: I would never claim to have the same mental damage as someone in those shoes. I personally don't believe that this is actually a thing.

Perhaps you wouldn't, no, but everyone is an individual. If you're happy with what you're doing that's excellent but not everyone is in the right job. It would take a certain type of person to be able to cope with the face-to-face things you described, and for others doing what you do might be, subjectively, as traumatic. The same things don't hit everyone the same way.

Perhaps they would be even more traumatised by the face-to-face stuff. Perhaps they would even be fine with that and might have difficulties accepting the "remote" aspect of what you do... they might have difficulties in putting having to kill people alongside the daily life you describe - on the one hand taking out insurgents, and half an hour later being in a supermarket with their kids. Pure speculation, but worth considering perhaps?

You not experiencing it doesn't mean it's "not a thing" for others. I don't have RSI but several people I work with do. It's still "a thing".

tzb wrote: You not experiencing it doesn't mean it's "not a thing" for others. I don't have RSI but several people I work with do. It's still "a thing".

I really worded that last piece of my post wrong. I'm just really torn about it. I'm not trying to say that the Air Force doesn't get some. They've done just as much as the Marine Corps and the Navy strategically. I'm also not saying that they're faking it, nor am I saying that they are soft. I only meant to say that I didn't understand it.

Thank you, tzb, for your input. I needed that. I would also like to apologize for wording it the way I did, came off rather prickish. I guess there's two sides to the coin as far as comparing my experiences with someone else's.

Ok, first I need to say that drones do NOT have pilots, they have programers These aircraft such as the Predator, Reaper, and Global Hawk (among others) are remotely piloted (ok the Global Hawk can be programed...) and classified as UAVs (Unmanned Arial Vehicles) Specifically RPA (Remotely Piloted Aircraft). Sorry! Pet peeve of mine

Anyways....

I couldn't read the article, it wants me to sign into or make an MSN account lol. Do they actually say "PTSD" in the article? I deployed into an Intel squadron in Iraq and spoke extensively with the image analysts and Predator pilots. These folks are out in the combat zones killing the bad guys and watching the good guys die. They don't even have to be deployed to support combat missions anymore. Their day in and day out job is blood, death, and battle. What they see on their monitors is excruciatingly clear (often called "Predator Porn") and in real-time. And it's not a job I envy them for.

It's not TECHNICALLY PTSD from what I know about it. With PTSD you must absolutely believe your life is in danger (although with the way the mind works, some people may forget that they are behind a monitor and may feel that way). But it IS combat stress and probably right up along that level. UAVs are still a new technology. Look how long it took to diagnose people with "Shell Shock" much less get them treatment. UAV pilots (and everyone else working with them) could be expanding the definition of PTSD, or they may need a new name and diagnosis to help them with what they go through.

Just to note: we (Air Force) have folks on the ground too. I can't tell you how many Communications troops were sent on deployment with the Army's convoys in Iraq and Afghanistan because they couldn't fill the manning...not to forget our Spec Ops guys. We're not intended to fill the roles of the ground-pounders as a service, but we do.

? I don't find it surprising or redefining at all. the UAV "pilots" get to see everything, but are also powerless to do anything about it, all they have is the ability to kill, really. I don't know how foot soldiers go about this, but i like to think they do more than shoot and then observe their torn in half enemies bleed to death...
Besides even paper pushers have their demons... Most people don't like to know that their actions have somewhat caused a lot of death... And then when they become indifferent they get upset by their own indifference... In a way foot soldiers are at an advantage, rules of engagement make it so that 1: someone else makes the decisions and 2: when they have to shoot of their own "free will", it's because they're being shot at. There's a certain order and logic to fall back on.
UAV pilots have to kill people who don't represent a threat to the pilot, even when they are armed and have engaged the UAV... I don't think it's abnormal for people to find this traumatic, especially once the military is no longer there to tell them "good job".

ren wrote: In a way foot soldiers are at an advantage, rules of engagement make it so that 1: someone else makes the decisions and 2: when they have to shoot of their own "free will", it's because they're being shot at. There's a certain order and logic to fall back on.

But they are also at the greatest disadvantage. They see everything, up close and personal. In real time, uncensored, unedited. All of their senses are working overtime, running at their max. The life of the foot soldier is truly a double edged sword.

Our UAV pilots are as trained and skilled as guys who fly the more traditional aircraft. There's no "pilot" about it. In some ways their job is easier and in others it's more difficult. Still not an easy school or training.

It may not be redefining, everything I know about PTSD is from briefings and time spent talking to the Mental Health doc I was seeing, I haven't dug into it more than what I needed to know for myself and my troops so I could be off

Unless they are flying a solely recognizance aircraft like the Global Hawk or the cute little model-sized one the Army uses (ok, I don't know what kind of training the Army gives on that one...that may be an operator instead of a pilot haha) that don't carry ordnance, I'd say using the weapons IS something they can do about it. And remember, they're also watching friendlies being killed. It's not just about the enemy.

Pilots are under the same rules of engagement as the ground-pounders. And in most (probably all) situations outside of Troops in Contact, someone else orders them to engage. There's quite an extensive list of who is a lawful target and when. No matter where the weapon is located (air or ground), the rules are the same. Although the UAV pilot isn't in life-threatening danger, they have friendlies who are. They may not know them, but they know they are Allied Forces and "one of our own". The training gets beaten into our heads and gives us all something to fall back on in that kind of a situation. Like you said Ren, I'm sure it's the aftermath that's hardest to deal with.