Vicarious Trauma Real, But Factor in Homicide?

After the Fort Hood murders this past week, three big questions about post-traumatic stress are revived in the media. Major Nidal Malik Hasan, a psychiatrist who had carried out research at Walter Reed Army Medical Center on post trauma treatment and cared for soldiers returning from overseas, decided to purchase a small variety of weapons and shoot more than thirteen people. And it was not the first time Fort Hood had experienced post-trauma violence around the base.

First, the case has revived discussions about how powerful secondary or "vicarious" traumatization can be. Vicarious traumatization is when a care-giver, psycho-therapist, or interviewer is traumatized from prolonged exposure to their patients' or clients' emotional stories about trauma. It can also arise from living near a fighting area and absorbing indirectly the suffering of others. Professionals, spouses and friends simply want to know what they can do to prepare or treat themselves to make sure that they move forward comfortably or intact. Second, those who live or work with people who have war-related Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) may wonder what factors lead to a manifestation of violent behavior. Fort Hood alone has seen domestic murder, suicide, and mass killing related to soldiers returning or preparing to disembark for the war front.

Finally, and this is the most delicate one, the broader public is wondering to what extent someone like Major Hasan may be linked to external influences which may have encouraged violent behavior. In this case, although in the early days it was seen as an isolated incident, there is new suspicion that Major Hasan was linked to a Yemeni-American jihadist named, Anwar al Alwaki, who not only preached anti-Americanism before the attack at Major Hasan's former mosque, but then celebrated the murders on his website. Fortunately, the Pentagon has already come out in support - at least in spirit if not yet in resources, pressure is needed on that side - to soldiers who may experience not only PTSD but vicarious PTSD. The leadership has also been careful to treat the Hasan case as isolated, not to assume any links to jihadists are sure until proven, and to encourage soldiers not to pre-judge fellow servicemen and women. Stay tuned for more on these subjects here on War.Change.org.

[Photo: US Army]

Eomnmrixfzvkvdh-30x30-cropped Daniel J Gerstle

Daniel J Gerstle is a creative long form crisis journalist, human rights researcher, and humanitarian aid consultant. Currently, Daniel is Editor and Chief Correspondent for HELO: The Crisis Story Magazine and has written for New America Media, the Guardian Weekly, Eurasianet, Islamica, the Journal of Peacebuilding and Development, the Journal of international Affairs, and more. Prior to all this, he served as a US Marine reservist stateside. Although he grew up in sweet Cincinnati, he's based in rocking New York City.

Comments (1)

  • Bobby Steele
    Nov 11, 2009 @ 07:23AM PT
    Bobby Steele

    Yes. And we should ignore the fact that he was a Muslim who associated with an Imam who espoused HATE, and he yelled Allah Achbar as he committed an act of ISLAMO-TERRORISM on unarmed American Troops.

    Since when should reality clog our judgement - right ?

    Politcal Correctness is suicide.

    The pro-Muslim Admin doesn't want to jump to conclusions here, but had no problem jumping to conclusions about a White Police Officer who was investigating the apparent burglary of a Black mans home that had a reported burglary attempt a week earlier.

    Remember, Obiwan said that 'when push comes to shove, I will stand with my Muslim brothers' - and this is what we see him doing... including the way he's mishandling Afghanistan.

    • Daniel J Gerstle
      Nov 11, 2009 @ 06:37PM PT
      Daniel J Gerstle

      Hi Bobby, We like to keep the discussion free speech so you've had your say, but just to let you know a couple people reported your post as violating the comment policy. And I agree with them.

      I want to leave your post up so that you don't think you're not welcome to have your own opinion, but I'm going to debate you.

      We are largely if not completely behind the center-point in terms of criticizing Anwar al Alwaki for celebrating violence and encouraging it among his readers, if not with Major Hasan if that is true. This is an incredible threat to many of us, but it is absolutely not about Islam itself or about the Islamic community.

      I'm now compelled to counter your additional comments even though you probably are unable to absorb what I'm trying to say. In one little post you've:

      *Wrote against "hate", then espoused a blanket judgement (some people consider this itself as a form of hate) against all of Islam which I think is not just unfair, but not based in any legitimate field research or understanding of the concepts. One won't get anywhere fighting what you consider hate with extreme prejudice.

      *Then you wrote that political correctness is suicide. By this I'm assuming you mean that we who are friendly to the Islamic world do so because we're afraid our friends will be offended if we aren't. That's not only absurd, but again, not based on an understanding of the concepts or any field experiences on the subject.

      You obviously read change, whether to agree with it or to find a way to counter the opinions expressed. But as far as the Islamic community, and religion, are concerned, just know that Muslims are on all political spectrums, some read Change, others watch Sean Hannity, some voted for Obama and Gore while others voted for Bush and McCain. So while you assume Islam means something based on passages you've discovered in the Koran, remember that the Ku Klux Klan, the Nazis, and a few other hate groups took passages out of the Bible.

      And if you're wondering who's countering your argument, I'm an Ohio-born Christian conservative-raised former US Marine, who has personally discussed issues of Islamic law and the mechanics of extremism with Islamic leaders in Somalia and with kind Muslims everywhere from Chechnya to Afghanistan. So consider yourself served.

      Obama must stay the course in building relationships in the Islamic world. We can only preserve American security if not global prosperity through partnerships in the Islamic World. To do as you have and espouse opposition to Islam would be to lose the long-running support of dozens of governments, millions of nice people, and kind and loving American Muslims just because your advocates did not understand that the handful of fanatics could just as easily be flying the flag of Christianity, O'Reilly-ism, or the Sugar Plum Fairies.

    • Reply to thread
  • Add a Comment

    Comment Policy

    Comments on Change.org are meant for further exploration and evaluation of the ideas covered in the posts. To that end, we welcome constructive comments. However, we reserve the right to delete comments that are offensive, abusive, or off-topic; that contain ad hominem attacks; or that are designed to subvert or hijack comment threads rather than contribute to them. Repeat offenders may be permanently removed from the site at our discretion.

Most Popular Actions
 in War and Peace

Start a Petition View all Actions
close

This user's Profile page is not public. They have restricted it to only their friends.

Already a Member?

Create an Account

You must create a Change.org account to complete this action. If you already have an account click here.

  Cancel