Anne Speckhard's Blog: Anne Speckhard, page 5

Finding Courage & Healing in Storytelling

The human mind likes to categorize events. When we have new experiences our brain searches for matches in order to help us formulate the proper response. Particularly when we have previously encountered danger the brain gives these events high priority and quickly activates if there is a match—to warn us to take caution if there might again be danger—to fight, flee or hide if necessary.

Our mind’s system of pattern matching also helps us to make sense of new experiences—placing the memory of new ones alongside others like it.

But what about if we encounter something completely new—a threat we never expected could strike us?

What if it’s childhood cancer and we have neither a match for that in our past experiences nor any expectation of cancer striking one of our young and beloved family members?  What then?

The mind, when confronted with any serious threat to life or limb, or witnessing of such a threat to others, goes immediately into high alert and tries to find a way to categorize it. But if there is no pattern match and the emotions are horrifying enough we either: freeze in numb dissociation, flee in attempts to get away from the bad news and events, or we put up a fight.

This project is about journaling via film and it’s an opportunity to address all three of these responses and help us to shift out of the ones that are no longer working for us.

Fighters will tell about how they are putting up the good fight and give courage to others who are also in the battle. But when the fight becomes overwhelming and loss looms too near they may also need to move through the painful stages of grieving: denial, anger, bargaining, depression and ultimately acceptance.

When death occurs there are again the painful stages of grieving and accepting loss.  Parents and siblings need to talk through how hard it is to face letting go of dear attachments and while still honoring and remembering, finding a path to slowing filling up the gapping hole that is left behind.

Life constantly requires us to let go but this is so hard when it’s letting go of one’s own child. Telling our stories can help to share the burden, to put words to this overwhelming grief and to find ways to rebuild when one just wants to withdraw and give up.

Those who have taken flight or who are numbly frozen in place—having fallen into depression, grief, avoidance, alienation or a numb dissociative state can find their way back into relationship by talking through their experiences and listening to others. By doing so they learn that they are not alone, that others understand, and that they can draw courage in community. They will find words for what they’ve been feeling and in doing so work through the confusion of being emotionally overwhelmed by a threat and potential or actual loss that seems too large to bear.

Traumatic news and traumatic bereavement often causes us to feel like we are experiencing life in little snippets of horrifying news and experiences. Narrating the journey can help us pull those snippets together into a coherent story that we can then search for answers to make sense of it, share with others, mull over and eventually come to peace with—no matter the outcome.

By telling our stories we will find our way through this experience, place it in the context of the human community and hopefully make friends, encourage each other and honor the ones who are in the battle and those who have moved beyond it.

Recently, a young person in the Washington, D.C. area succumbed to a type of childhood cancer. In the wake and aftermath of that person’s death the school’s counselor expressed concern that that there weren’t more parents of classmates seeking grief counseling for their children who were also deeply affected. Perhaps the parents felt a stigma, were overwhelmed with other priorities, or simply didn’t see the need.  But the truth is—when cancer strikes, whether a death occurs or not—it impacts more than just the family. It also causes a ripple effect of concern, confusion, sadness, and even horror through the ranks of classmates—close friends and acquaintances alike—who may be too young to make sense of this difficult experience.

Life continually challenges us. Journaling is one approach and outlet to advance healing within families and classmates as well. Telling our stories and finding community and coherence by doing helps us to stay centered and heal from the things that are so silently piercing our hearts.

Pick up your journals and i-pads and join us on a healing journey!

Anne Speckhard, Ph.D. is Adjunct Associate Professor of Psychiatry at Georgetown University Medical School. This is first in a series of blogsfor Donna Speckhard’s My Truth in 365 – A Virtual Journal Project on Pediatric Cancer http://mytruthin365.wix.com/mytruthin...

“Sex Jihad”—A New Role for Extremist Women in Militant Jihadi Groups?

When Ayman Zawahiri’s wife, the al Qaeda successor to Osama bin Ladin, was asked in 2009 about the permissible roles of women in waging jihad she wrote a letter to her “Muslim sisters” encouraging them to leave the fighting to the men and to wage jihad through giving money, Internet support and by training up the next generation of young believers for jihad.  She reminded women of their duty: ‘to goad their brothers, husbands and sons to defend Muslims’ territories and properties … to assist the (male) jihadis with prayers and money.’ She also warned Muslim women not “to abandon [the modesty] of her appearance and covering herself, this is [necessarily] followed by a series of other [neglects] that push her away from her religion.’

While this was the central al Qaeda party line in 2009, it now appears that a new militant jihadi role has emerged for women—at least for Tunisian women who are reportedly going off to Syria to sexually “comfort” the rebels fighting there.

And it’s become enough of a problem that Tunisian Interior Minister Lotfi ben Jeddou announced Thursday to the National Constituent Assembly that an alarming number of Tunisian women have gone to aid rebel militants in Syria having “sexual relations with 20, 30, 100 militants” adding that “After the sexual liaisons they have there in the name of “jihad al-nikah’ [translated as sexual holy war] they come home pregnant.”

Following this statement, the Tunisia women’s ministry said on Saturday that they are drawing up plans to counter the growing number of women going to Syria to comfort militants. “The ministry intends to boost its cooperation with both government and non-government bodies on this issue to come up with appropriate ways to thwart the plans of those who encourage such practices,” a ministry statement announced.

While neither ministry gave any figures about the numbers of Tunisian women taking part in “jihad al-nikah” media reports have said hundreds of Tunisian women have gone to Syria for such purposes—some of them perhaps following the hundreds of men who have also been joining militants to battle the regime of Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad. It appears that the practice of permitting extramarital sexual relations with multiple partners via temporary marriage contracts is viewed by militant jihadi groups affiliated with al Qaeda as a legitimate form of holy war.

Over the past fifteen years thousands of Tunisians took part in militant jihadi battles in Afghanistan, Iraq and now Syria. Interior Minister ben Jeddou stated that in the past six months since he’d taken office he had instituted increased border controls that had thwarted six thousand young persons from traveling to Syria to join the rebels and that eighty individuals organizing travel to Syria had also been arrested.

While I’ve been studying female terrorists for years now noting the number of roles they often play in militant jihadi groups—from translators of texts that glorify and justify terrorism, to couriers of messages and money, cooks and support roles in militant camps, trainers of the new generation of militants and for those willing to give up their lives for the cause—carriers of suicide bombs, this is completely new to me.

In all of my interviews, with and about female terrorists involved in militant jihadi groups, I’ve always been impressed that despite the many roles they may take on—they rarely—if ever hold leadership roles or wield much power.  Indeed in the Nord Ost siege in Moscow where eight hundred hostages were held for three days the terrorist women took orders from the men.  And despite being rigged with suicide bombs strapped around their waists not one of the twenty women dared detonate before being overcome with gas while their men went out in the foyer to fight the onslaught of Russian Special Forces. In that case the women’s doubt to take initiative may have saved the hostages who survived the gassing that occurred by their own side.

While sexual relations do play a role in militant jihadi groups, often claims are made by opposing forces that militant jihadis coerce women into becoming suicide bombers by raping or compromising them sexually.  However for most of the women I’ve interviewed—or if they are an already dead suicide bomber I talked to their family members or close associates and sometimes also to their senders—most appear to have gone willingly.  They didn’t need to be compromised or coerced inside conflict zones but instead begged their senders to equip them to enact revenge for traumatic experiences they had undergone at the hands of their enemy.  Their own men had no need to use rape or sexual coercion to motivate them.

In non-conflict zones females get involved for more complicated reasons involving converts who may want to purify themselves—like Muriel Degauque in Belgium who appeared to want to cleanse herself from survival guilt and her past by becoming a “martyr”.  Likewise in the Netherlands a small group of girls seduced into a militant jihadi group signed last wills and testaments and offered themselves in informal marriages to young men who promised to become “martyrs” apparently seeing themselves exalted among their peers in the future by becoming widows of “martyrs”.

In the case of the Tunisian girls who are going to Syria it still remains unclear if they are following young men they love and then end up servicing the needs of many, or if they are voluntarily engaging in such acts, or somehow coerced. Despite the strict practice of Islam—one thing clear in Islamic culture is a healthy respect for the sex drives of both males and females.  Perhaps in this case some Tunisian females are finding a way to throw off all fetters and embrace their sexuality? And it is also not clear who takes responsibility for the babies born out of such sexual liaisons and if the girls are accepted back into society when they return home?  If the extremists group’s bonds are strong it may be that extremists at home protect them just as widows and children of “martyred” fighters in Palestine and Chechnya also receive support.

In April, the former mufti of Tunisia Sheikh Othman Battikh speaking about thirteen girls that had been sent to Syria for such purposes, said that Tunisian girls were being fooled into going to provide sexual services and he named these services prostitution—moral and educational corruption.

While their services are likely much appreciated by the rebels receiving them—it does seem it can hardly be good for the women involved.

Psychological Health for All—Throwing off the Beauty Queen Routine

Beauty pageants have dominated the news this past week. The French Senate banned them for girls under 16, threatening a two-year prison sentence and stiff fines of thirty thousand Euros for organizers–or parents–who enter their children into illegally organized contests. The French bill referenced the spate of advertising already occurring in France with hypersexualized images of prepubescent girls showing up in advertising and the potential negative mental health effects to girls of sexualizing them at a young age by requiring them to wear heavy makeup and provocative attire.

In the same week many in the U.S. were surprised to learn that we still hold the Miss America contest and that it was won by an American of Indian heritage. Derogatory comments on Twitter erupted about why an Arab and Muslim had won the American contest despite the fact the new Indian descent Miss America was neither Arab nor Muslim and we already had an Arab Miss America two years ago (Rima Fakih). It seems some forget the beauty of the American dream– in myth at least–is its ability to assimilate and offer opportunity to all. Even our beauty contests allow American contestants of any ethnicity or religion to potentially win–despite prejudices held by these few on Twitter.

Next, a Marina High School in Huntington, CA elected sixteen-year-old Cassidy Campbell, a male to female transgender who is still in the process of transition, to be its homecoming queen.

It turns out that Campbell is not the first transgender girl to win the homecoming queen title. Jessee Vasold, a male to female transgender became homecoming queen in 2009 at William and Mary in Williamsburg, VA and a nineteen-year-old named Devon, also a male to female transgender student still undergoing transition was voted her school’s Junior Homecoming Princess. In the last case Devon was elected to the queen’s role without letting on about her status and prior to having sex reassignment surgery.

So what does all this news amount to? Are women of any background now able to break the sexist stereotypes of beauty pageants these days? Or, are the stereotypes still breaking the women and girls they crown? Is crowning any girl—a still transitioning or fully transitioned transgender woman, an Arab, a Muslim, or none of these categories—to become a high school or college homecoming queen, or beauty pageant winner a good thing? Is it healthy for any group of females to be submitting themselves to the organized judgment of others—to determine who is most worthy according to external standards?

The French are perhaps the first to officially recognize that it is not healthy for young girls organized by adults–to try to fit stereotyped gender roles and compete in popularity contest in large or whole part based on sexualized ideals of beauty that have nothing to do with innocence or childhood–and that these pageants are detrimental to the psychological health of all young girls.

Transgender individuals now entering into homecoming contests may perhaps begin to cause some of us to ask ourselves what is both gender and beauty anyway–and how much of it is culturally defined versus intrinsically known? And why would we want any developing young person under the age of eighteen–male or female, transgender or not, to submit themselves to the scrutiny of others to decide if they measure up? For a country that got rid of royalty on its road to independence it seems Americans could also now grasp the wisdom of doing away with the hierarchal idea of beauty queens. Can’t we recognize and bring out the beauty in everyone and celebrate real beauty without any king or queen being crowned among us?

Mental Health Issues and the Security Clearance Process—Questions Raised after the U.S. Navy Yard Active Shooter

The recent Navy Yard shooting in which active shooter Aaron Alexis entered the Washington, D.C. Navy facility with a gun that he used to kill twelve and injure many more–before being shot and killed himself, raises some important national security issues regarding the clearance process and granting of access to military facilities. 

Edward Snowden, Chelsea Manning (at the time Bradley Manning), Nidal Hassan, and Aaron Alexis all carried clearances.  Snowden and Manning betrayed their clearance by releasing classified documents into the hands of others.  Nidal Hassan, a military psychiatrist who had been treating wounded veterans returning from war and who was about to deploy into Afghanistan and Aaron Alexis were both active shooters.  They took weapons into a military facility and opened fire upon their colleagues ending in their own anticipated suicide. 

Today over five million U.S. security clearances are issued–one third of them to “contractors”–that is individuals who work for companies that hold government contracts.  Snowden and Alexis were both contractors.  Snowden, working for Booz Allen amazingly maneuvered himself into a position with access to innumerable classified and highly important government documents that he was able to surreptitiously remove from his workplace and then release to media contacts. 

How were these persons holding security clearances and with access to government facilities able to penetrate a system to do it terrible damage without the system having some idea of the impending danger?  Is our security clearance system broken? 

If one goes back over these cases it’s clear there were some warnings in nearly every case.  In the case of Nidal Hassan, he was becoming increasingly agitated over the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and about being a Muslim serving in a military conflict against a Muslim country.  He expressed his concerns to his colleagues in a fashion that caused them to be disturbed–but nothing was done about it. He also asked the military not to send him to Afghanistan.

Likewise Hassan, a Palestinian by descent, would by anyone’s estimation likely have been aware of the campaign of suicide terrorism-glorified as “martyrdom” being carried out by Palestinians during the Second Intifida.  That campaign and its ideology may or may not have infected his own way of thinking about suicide rampages in behalf of what he might have felt was a good cause.  And if authorities had tracked his Internet and personal records they would have found him worshipping at the same Northern VA mosque in which Anwar al-Awlaki served and that Awlaki–then living in Yemen and highly radicalized–had become a mentor to Hassan discussing his concerns about serving as a Muslim in the U.S. military.  Before his active shooter campaign, Hassan packed up his belongings, settled his debts and bid goodbye to his landlady–although leaving her with the impression he was going off to war.  It was just a different type of war he was engaging in and no one picked up the warning signs.  

If Hassan had been subject to a more frequent security review process, if his colleagues had engaged more with him about his very real concerns, if the military had considered his expressed reservations about being sent as Muslim military member to Afghanistan, and if he had been subject to a data base review of his Internet contacts, he might have been flagged and successfully treated or discharged from the military before he went on his murderous rampage.  His acts depended upon his access to the base and trust that had been placed in him by a government that failed to realize how mentally unstable he had become. 

Chelsea Manning also gave clear signs of distress to colleagues and the medical system prior to her betrayal of U.S. secrets.  Her dilemma was quite different than Nidal Hassan’s but every bit as personally distressing.  As a serving transgender individual in the U.S. military which still does not accept and more disturbingly does not reassure it’s well serving transgender service members that they can continue to serve if they disclose their status or seek treatment along existing standards of care–she faced automatic discharge if her “secret” became known. 

As is often the case with many transgender service members, Manning had likely entered the service without having come to grips with her transgender issues.  At the time when she could no longer ignore it, she was already committed to her military career and caught in the don’t ask/don’t tell dilemma that continues to this day for transgender service members.  She was literally harboring a painful personal secret that was bursting to be addressed at the same time when she was becoming increasingly disturbed by U.S. military practices in Iraq.  Unable to disclose her secret or to get adequate treatment for it without losing her military career, she instead addressed her other concerns about U.S. military practices making a decision to become what she believed was a whistleblower–a decision that involved disclosing state secrets, betraying her country and her security clearance. 

Aaron Alexis also gave out serious warning signals.  Prior to being accepted into the Navy reserves he had been arrested, but not charged in 2004, when he shot out the tires of a car in what he explained to police afterward was an anger induced rage–a signal that he might have a serious dissociative tendency and anger management issues.  Then while in the military in 2008 he was thrown out of a bar after destroying furniture in it.  In that incident he was arrested and spent two nights in jail.  Then in 2010 he had intimidated a neighbor over his complaints about her being noisy, in an ongoing altercation that culminated in him “accidently” discharging his gun, shooting through her apartment’s floor.  The Navy was alerted of all three incidents.  

Likewise despite being discharged from the Navy and their knowing from his parents that they were also concerned about their son’s “anger management” issues, the Navy allowed him to continue to carry his security clearance that allowed him to be later hired by a contractor and gain access to multiple military facilities.  And in the past month Alexis had been seeking emergency treatment more than once at the VA for multiple nights of insomnia–another flag that he might have been deeply psychologically distressed.

Perhaps most disturbingly in his long record of signaling possible impairment to those who gave him his clearance and access to the bases, Alexis had also called the police in August of 2013 while in Rhode Island complaining that he was being microwaved and that there were persecuting voices in his head–potential signals of a schizophrenic episode.  The Rhode Island police alerted the Navy police who somehow failed to take action.  Clearly with all these signals of a troubled mind, the Navy had some obligation to re-review his security clearance and access privileges but it appears that given numerous warnings they failed to do so.  And now twelve people are dead and many more are wounded, bereaved and psychologically traumatized by his actions. 

The security clearance process in the U.S. does not require a person never to have sought mental health treatment or even not to have mental health issues and that is probably correct given that many people serve their country well despite psychological challenges and there are many treatments available to stabilize mental conditions. What the clearance process does require is an assessment of whether a psychological condition and its treatment would impair that person’s judgment and behavior in regard to classified materials and access.  This includes an assessment as to whether or not they are faithfully following their treatment.  So carrying a diagnosis and receiving treatment is not a definitive block to carrying a security clearance.

Despite this, I have personally been asked over the years many times to treat military and diplomatic personnel outside their medical system because they were seriously enough concerned over their security clearance status should they seek treatment for anxiety, addictions, PTSD, dissociative disorders, marriage stressors and even suicidal family members that they wished to do so paying cash rather than having any entry of their treatment logged into their medical system.  In each case that I was involved as a treating clinician, I was given no reasons to doubt the cleared individual’s ability to carry out their duty to their country.  And it seemed wise to me that they did seek treatment as the issues they were facing were serious ones that could impair their ability to perform without treatment.  But had they been compromised, I as an outside clinician would have also faced a dilemma–would this constitute an instance of duty to warn, or would I be obliged to not break their confidentiality? 

While we certainly don’t want to discourage those carrying clearances from seeking and receiving help for psychological challenges they may inevitably as members of the human family face, we also must consider some way of flagging those who should not for mental health reasons be carrying a clearance or having access to military or government facilities, personnel and data bases.  That is a difficult issue to maneuver as penalizing security clearance holders for needing and responsibly seeking treatment can also mean they simply won’t seek treatment–which can also have disastrous consequences.

More frequent review of clearances seems to be a likely solution.  When a military pilot project on security clearance reform was carried out looking only at social media traces of a group holding security clearances it revealed that twenty percent showed demonstrable reasons for review of their security clearance status–including threats to a president, history of arrest and charges, and suicidal intentions. Perhaps the most important things we can do immediately as a country is to enact some kind of security clearance reform that requires continuous evaluation of those who hold clearances without penalizing those who are legitimately addressing any mental health issues they may have.

We could also encourage more police reporting of those they arrest and interact with, who carry security clearances–to flag the appropriate agencies.  These days with big data applications we could easily track those who carry security clearances to be, at a minimum, alerted of their arrest histories.  While medical records likely should not be the subject of privacy invasions, it certainly could be possible to collect all arrest records and have them analyzed to spit out those like Aaron Alexis who we now see in hindsight, gave us many warnings of his psychic unraveling. 

 Sadly he was not flagged for a diagnostic workup and comprehensive treatment and continued on with a clearance and access status while falling apart, a failure of the system that allowed him to hurt not only himself but many others in the process.  Clearly we need to and can find a better way to address these issues.

The Syrian Red Line and how Images Change Everything

Last week I wrote (with Raj Persaud) about the deep psychological effects of chemical weapons and invisible stressors upon civilian populations—making the case that their use must be considered outside the red lines of acceptable combat practices because of the pervasive psychological horror they cause.

Today I’d like to acknowledge, as many of the commentaries to that post noted, that Syria is not the only country that has used chemical weapons, and discuss what has changed to make an international community that itself once relied upon chemical weapons now more willing to draw a red line in the case of Assad’s having allegedly gassed his own people.

Indeed, the very countries calling for Assad’s surrender of chemical weapons were once involved in their production and proliferation.  Mustard gas was used in World War One. And even the Americans produced and supplied mustard gas to Europe for potential retaliatory use against the Germans in World War II (although they did not deploy it). Hitler gassed thousands of military and civilian prisoners to death, Iraq used gas against the Kurds, and in the Vietnam war the U.S. used chemical agents—namely spraying Napalm and Agent Orange over heavily forested areas in an attempt to deforest the areas where the enemy combatants were hiding.  And only recently, Israel was accused of using banned phosphorous in its bombs detonated over Gaza.

Is there then a hypocrisy in drawing a red line in the case of Assad’s alleged use of chemical weapons against his opposition forces and their civilian family members?  And what changed in the West for these agents to now be considered crossing the Red Line?

In the case of the recent past and the U.S. use of Napalm and Agent Orange, it should be pointed out that the actual targets for these chemical agents were vegetation, under which enemy combatants were sheltering, not people.  The problem was that the chemical agents did not fall only on trees but fell also on enemy combatants—and much more disturbingly also on innocent civilians.  And the results for some were catastrophic.

But very few here at home knew about it.  That is until a particularly disturbing photo of a naked little girl screaming as she ran helplessly trying to escape the burning Napalm adhered to her backside was published in LIFE magazine.

That one photo brought the horrific realities of the U.S. military’s use of Napalm and the Vietnam War’s unintended effects on innocent civilians home to an American public who increasingly became disenchanted of supporting the ongoing war efforts.  The horror captured in a photo began dramatically to turn the tide of domestic public opinion about the Vietnam War and the U.S. use of Napalm in that war.

While Napalm had immediate horrific effects on civilians during the Vietnam War—and was used for years despite those effects—Agent Orange, another defoliating agent, was also sprayed over these populations. Agent Orange, is now believed to be linked to long-term illness and birth defects among those exposed to it.

Years after the war, Vietnam veterans with health problems linked to their exposure to Agent Orange successfully forced seven chemical firms to accept liability and pay damages that the U.S. government refused to indemnify them for.  U.S. and international chemical companies began to understand that there were real monetary risks to producing chemical weapons—and that damages could be sought for their wartime use.  This caused many of them to refuse to produce new agents when the U.S. government requested them to do so.  Dow Chemical even found its representatives rebuffed at many college campuses in response to their manufacture of Napalm—many young engineers did not want to work for a company that produced an agent that had horrifically burned small children.  Likewise, many consumers boycotted Dow consumer product “saran wrap” in efforts to get them to stop producing Napalm.

During the same time period the American public was also beginning to understand the deep psychological costs of war to our youth sent overseas.  The media began publicizing the newly understood posttraumatic stress disorder that many Vietnam veterans suffered from.  With movies, interviews, and photos of the war infiltrating back home, more than ever before the public began to understand that many of our young soldiers returned home deeply changed and psychologically wounded from their experiences in war.  Immediate and dramatic media coverage of the Vietnam War and its after effects was sensitizing the entire population to the horrors of war—including the use of chemical agents and their potential rebound effect on our own soldiers.  Red lines were being drawn in the minds of many.

Given the U.S. and international community’s previous use of chemical agents during war some now feel justified to ask about the moral grounds of those who are presently decrying Assad’s alleged, and in the eyes of many—established—use of chemical weapons upon his own people.  Are members of that same community not entirely innocent of having used chemicals themselves?  What right do they have to condemn Assad?  What has changed?

In addressing the potential for hypocrisy in decrying Assad’s use of chemical weapons we must point out that there is a crucial, although still disturbing, difference between a state actor that uses chemical agents for an arguably legitimate combat reason—targeting the foliage under which enemy combatants are sheltering, and who inadvertently harms civilians, but does not desist—than one who knowingly sets out to use chemical weapons to cause civilian deaths.

And despite that we see in our own American history that one picture—of a naked little girl screaming as she tries to flee the Napalm that is already melting the flesh of her backside—drew a red line for millions of Americans and turned the tide of public support against its use.

Likewise, now the videos of children, women and civilians choking from the sarin gas used in Syria is so horrifying that anyone watching immediately understands that this type of  act cannot be tolerated—it is too horrible.  Sarin gas is a weapon that is not limited to attacking enemy combatants or the forests under which the enemy shelters.  Instead it chokes the life out of innocents too young to have a side or be involved in a battle and it creates a wave of terror throughout the whole population.  And that creates a red line that all must respect—including those who crossed it before or dare cross it today.

Syria’s Chemical Warfare: A Brand of Horror that begs for a Red Line

Estimates of the number of deaths in the Syrian conflict range from 83,000 to over 110,000, yet in the last weeks Bashir Assad’s alleged (and increasingly proven) use of chemical weapons to attack the resistance highlights the particular horror of chemical attacks versus conventional warfare.  Indeed, exposure to toxins, chemicals, radiation and biological weapons—all invisible stressors—that cause suffering, disease and death, but are impossible to see has its own brand of horror.

Terrorists have long known that the way to strike terror into the hearts of an entire populace is to strike hard, and spectacularly, on a few and allow media amplification to do the rest—spreading ripples of horror from the fewdead to convince everyone that everywhere is dangerous.

Having worked with victims of the Chernobyl disaster and other toxic exposures, I know that when some are struck ill or die from an invisible stressor, the fear of it quickly spreads like a cancer throughout society.  For fomenting terror, there is nothing like the threat of an invisible stressor that no one can easily detect, but nearly everyone comes to fear. Chemical weapons accomplish this in a particularly horrific manner—they spread the fear that toxic particles can be released at anytime, anywhere and the normal citizen has no idea how to detect, much less protect himself and his loved ones from death.

Thus even though Bashir Assad’s alleged use of rockets dropping toxic agents to kill approximately two thousand rebels (and their families) was limited, given the entire scope of the conflict—the horror of the attack quickly rippled throughout Syrian society and indeed around the world, causing the international community to vociferously debate how to respond.

The media amplification began immediately with dozens of horrific videos immediately released by the victims’ families and health care providers showing distressed and visibly sick adults and children in makeshift hospitals with no external injuries—yet struggling for their very lives.  The reports of patients suffering convulsions, pinpointed pupils, and struggling to breathe quickly permeated society and evidence of a sarin attack was eventually confirmed.  Some of these videos displayed dozens of bodies—including the corpses of young children and infants—laid out in rows on the floor of makeshift clinics.

In this attack we see that despite the high number of deaths already racked up in the Syrian conflict, the regime’s alleged use of chemical attack has a particularly potent psychological aspect to it.  Now Syrians, everywhere, have to contend with the horror of knowing the regime possesses additional such weapons and may use them at anytime against anyone, and there is likely very little they can do to protect themselves from it.  Assad’s state sponsored terror has taken on a whole new level of horror that indeed does beg for a red line.

Anne Speckhard, Ph.D. is Adjunct Associate Professor of Psychiatry in the Georgetown University Medical School and has conducted research interviews with victims of various types of chemical, radiological and toxic exposures.  She is the author of Talking to Terrorists: Understanding the Psycho-Social Motivations of Militant Jihadi Terrorists, Mass Hostage Takers, Suicide Bombers & “Martyrs”, Fetal Abduction: The True Story of Multiple Personalities and Murder and coauthor of Warrior Princess: A U.S. Navy SEALs Journey to Coming out Transgender.

Bradley Manning’s Transgender Dilemma in the U.S. Military—A Secret that Needed to be Told?

Bradley Manning, was recently given a thirty-five prison sentence for leaking secret documents that he claimed were distributed in order to expose wrongdoing and prompt debate of government policies among the American public.  It appears now that Bradley Manning had already been living for years under another military imposed prison sentence—feeling trapped as a female in a male body and unable during his military service to openly acknowledge that angst. 

  

 Manning, now renaming herself Chelsea, has come out as transgender—provoking yet another public debate over mental health and LGBT issues as they relate to U.S. military service.  Indeed this is a debate that needs to occur.

This past June, Kristin Beck, former U.S. Navy SEAL also came out transgender, chronicling her story in the book Warrior Princess: A U.S. Navy SEAL’s Journey to Coming out Transgender.  Beck gender identified female as a preschooler but only found the courage and support to express herself as a female following twenty years of service as a U.S. Navy SEAL.  At the time when she entered the Navy and won a place in the SEALs, Beck found little public support for coming out and she certainly knew that once in the U.S. military she had to keep her gender identity secret—as to reveal it would result in an immediate discharge from service.

Beck found her SEAL’s duties a good means of hiding and suppressing her internal conflict as she was constantly engaged in “masculine” pursuits.  Likewise, when the “war on terror” started she volunteered for nearly constant deployments, sometimes risking her life as she despaired of living in constant painful hiding.

George Brown, M.D. a former military psychiatrist who has probably studied U.S. transgender military individuals more thoroughly that any other, theorizes that male to female transgenders—who are overrepresented in the military and gravitate to the Special Forces—do so in order to suppress their female gender identities.  They in his words, join the Special Forces in order to take a “flight into hypermasculinity”. 

 Whether the so called “masculine” character and physical traits demanded by the SEALs, Rangers, and other SOFs—fortitude, courage, teamwork, determination and extreme athleticism—all necessary to building a warrior—are indeed masculine traits could also be a whole other cultural debate about what is indeed “masculine” or “feminine”.  It may be that if Beck had come out female early on, and gone through transition, that she still would have wanted to prove herself—and if allowed into the SEALs may have also performed in a superior manner in a hormonally and surgically transitioned female body.

But our military does not value the service of its transgender members enough to allow them to serve openly.  And this causes a great deal of pain to those who having found their careers in the military as they must also hide their true identities while serving—as Bradley Manning did.

And we see even today, as the Army responded to Manning’s request to transition, publicly stating that it “does not provide hormone therapy or sex-reassignment surgery for gender identity disorder” that the Army is even behind in its terminology.  Gender identity disorder has been removed from the DSM-V and is now referred to as gender dysphoria.  

 Australia, New Zealand, UK, Spain, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Israel all allow transgender service and provide medical support to their service members including treatment for gender dysphoria when applicable.  It is interesting that in this cultural climate of acceptance that our military does not provide the same support to its transgender service members.  U.S. transgender service members may be willing to take a bullet for their country—but the country is not willing to meet their medical needs.  It should also be noted that not all transgender individuals desire to change their bodies, and for those that do, the time off for surgery may require the same recovery period as a hysterectomy or C-section birth—medical procedures that are also performed for active duty service members.

 One wonders if Chelsea Manning had been free to declare herself female and had been given the support to stay openly in the military and transition (if she wished to), if she would have shown different judgment on how she handled state secrets.  Likely she was bursting with her own secret and at the time she leaked government documents was yearning for an honest debate.  Perhaps now is the time to have that debate. 

Anne Speckhard, Ph.D. is Adjunct Associate Professor of Psychiatry in the Georgetown University Medical School and author of Talking to Terrorists: Understanding the Psycho-Social Motivations of Militant Jihadi Terrorists, Mass Hostage Takers, Suicide Bombers & “Martyrs”, Fetal Abduction: The True Story of Multiple Personalities and Murder and coauthor of Warrior Princess: A U.S. Navy SEALs Journey to Coming out Transgender.

 

We Served Too—Remembering Civilian Sacrifices made in Behalf of our Country—Honoring those who Served alongside the Military in Conflict Zones and High Threat Security Environments

This Memorial Day all Americans send a heartfelt salute to all those warriors who fought and died so gallantly in recent and far off wars in behalf of our freedoms and safety.  In behalf of those who died, we can never thank them or their families enough for the ultimate sacrifice they made for our country.

Alongside that salute we now also need to begin to honor the oft forgotten civilians who also serve in war and high threat security environments alongside the military, supporting their efforts and working in concert with them—especially all those civilians who served in the two recent U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan—as many civilian workers have also lost their lives while serving our country.

While we don’t often remember the sacrifices of civilian workers in conflict zones, or have a holiday to commemorate their service, we do need to honor that they too serve their country. 

A little known fact is that in September 2007 there were more contractors in Iraq than combat troops.  According to a 2013 report of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction (SIGIR) reports that, “In September 2007, the United States had more than 170,000 combat personnel in Iraq as part of the counterinsurgency operation, with more than 171,000 contractors supporting the mission.”  These contractors are credited in the report for supporting “the counterinsurgency mission in unstable, yet strategically significant, areas such as Baghdad, Anbar, and Babylon provinces.” (Emphasis added)

Civilian contractor casualties it turns out may be one of the least known aspects of our recent wars. For instance, the Defense Base Act case summary report lists three hundred defense base act death claims filed for 2012 and since September 2001 it lists three thousand, three hundred and two civilian contractor deaths and ninety-one thousand civilian contractors injured in that time frame.  While not all of these deaths occurred in combat zones, the majority did.  Likewise not all of the civilian deaths are Americans—the Department of Labor does not release the names of the claimants or their nationalities so it is difficult to parse.  Many different nationalities—from Americans, Europeans and third world countries—serve our military and civilian efforts in conflict zones, with deaths and injuries spread across all.

As traditionally held military jobs have increasingly shifted to the private sector, including mess hall cooks, guards, drivers, interpreters, analysts, culture experts, trainers, etc. the risks to civilians serving inside conflict zones has also risen.  The New York Times reported in February 11, 2012 that, “More civilian contractors working for American companies than American soldiers died in Afghanistan last year for the first time during the war,” reporting that “at least 430 employees of American contractors were reported killed in Afghanistan: 386 working for the Defense Department, 43 for the United States Agency for International Development and one for the State Department”. 

Contractor deaths exceeded military deaths in Iraq in 2009 also and were nearly equal last year—fifty-four soldiers compared to forty-one contractor deaths according to the U.S. Department of Labor statistics.  Clearly civilians are just as likely to make the ultimate sacrifice as soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan—yet so few know about or recognize civilian service to our nation.

When, Major General Arnie Fields was asked to comment for our newly formed organization We Served Too—an organization that supports and honors American and international civilian service in conflict zones and high threat security environments—he had a lot to say on how the shift to asymmetrical warfare now places civilian workers in the same danger that front line soldiers traditionally faced.  He states:

The dynamics of war have considerably changed in recent years.  The past ten years have been most significant.  The parameters that have heretofore defined the battlefield—or battle space—have been dramatically altered.  Military commanders in Iraq and Afghanistan have learned early on that the conventional ‘front’ and ‘rear”, which in earlier wars defined the most dangerous areas of the battlefield and the safest, respectively, do not exist.  The enemy’s threat is virtually omnipresent.  Soldiers not in direct pursuit of the enemy are in almost as much danger as those who are.  This new paradigm, often referred to as asymmetrical warfare, places civilians assisting in the war effort in about as much imminent danger as the traditional uniformed warrior…For example, as a civilian department of State employee in Iraq and as the U.S. Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction, I wore my military flak jacket and helmet with more consistency while conducting my work than I did on active military duty in the Marine Corps.”  (Emphasis added).

Commenting on the medical aspects of service to our nation in conflict zones, Lt General Dr. Paul K. Carlton, Jr. also states “Military medicine has served as the tip of the spear in this conflict!
Our civilian medical system has been a superb partner to us and has to be
considered the shaft of the spear! They are integral to our entire effort!”
 

Indeed it is no longer only our military that are serving and sacrificing their lives in conflict zones.  As the Special Inspector General in Iraq pointed out in his 2013 report, government contractors, government civilian workers, nongovernment workers and even journalists are serving alongside our military and as Major General Arnie Fields states—while serving in asymmetrical warfare they may serve in equal danger to those previously considered to be in the “front” lines. 

While our military serviceman returning from Iraq and Afghanistan have faced shameful delays and nonresponsive replies from the Veterans Health Administration to get their claims covered—civilian contractors who return from the battle space with similar injuries—including limbs blown off, traumatic brain injury, PTSD, depression, traumatic bereavement and the like—have found they too have had to battle with the insurance coverage provided under the Defense Base Act (DBA)—a law requiring insurance coverage for those contracting with any agency of the U.S. government for work outside the U.S.

At present the recording of civilian contractor deaths in conflict zones is tought by many to be underreported and clearly these civilians die unheralded.  Likewise those who are wounded are finding it difficult to get their needs met. 

My wish today is for all service persons—civilian and military veterans alike—who return from our recent wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and from serving our great nation in other high threat security posts, to be honored—for their needs and those of their family members to be well taken care of, and for none of us to ever forget all those who served our country—civilian and military alike. 

In behalf of that, I and some other colleagues have begun an organization entitled We Served Too (www.WeServedToo.org) in order to honor and support civilian veterans of conflict zones and high threat security environments.  We are only on our first steps in that initiative, but invite you to join us in giving a hearty and respectful salute on this Memorial Day to all the civilians who also serve alongside their military counterparts and especially to those who gave the ultimate sacrifice.  May they be honored and never forgotten.

Anne Speckhard, Ph.D. is Adjunct Associate Professor of Psychiatry in the Georgetown University Medical School and author of Talking to Terrorists: Understanding the Psycho-Social Motivations of Militant Jihadi Terrorists, Mass Hostage Takers, Suicide Bombers & “Martyrs” In the last decade she interviewed over four hundred terrorists, suicide bombers, terrorist supporters, family members, close associates and hostages.

The Symbolic Nature of Terrorist Beheadings

In recent days we have horrifically witnessed the murder by beheading of Lee Rigby, a UK British soldier who served in Afghanistan. In that case the murderer stated, “I am fed up with people killing Muslims in Afghanistan” and added that his motivations were revenge—“because Muslims are dying everyday.”

The same style of ritualized killing was attempted by Mohammed Bouyeri, the Dutch second generation Moroccan immigrant who murdered Theo van Gogh—the celebrated filmmaker who had participated in the film Submission critical of Islam’s treatment of women with Ayaan Hirsi Ali.  Bouyeri stabbed van Gogh eight times before cutting his throat, nearly decapitating him.  He then pinned a five-page letter to van Gogh’s chest with his knife. Bouyeri wanted revenge for van Gogh’s critical comments about radical Islamists who van Gogh had referred to as “goat-fuckers” and was outraged over the film “Submission”, in which a Muslim woman is shown half naked with Islamic verses written across her lash-marked back and under her breasts shown under a see-through veil. 

Weeks earlier, when Dzhokar Tsarnaev admitted that it was he and his brother Tamerlan who had set off the bombs killing and maiming many at the Boston Marathon, a brutal triple murder case was reopened to investigate if Tamerlan was involved.  In that case Brendan Mess, Tamerlan’s “best friend” and two of Brendan’s (Jewish) roommates—Erik Weissman and Raphael Teken had also been nearly beheaded.  Their murder took place on 9-11, 2011 and appears highly symbolic in that there was no forced entry, the date of the murder was the anniversary of the 9-11 attacks and no money was taken and drugs were sprinkled across the nearly beheaded victims’ bodies. As the FBI tracked clues into the case and questioned Ibragim Todashev, a friend of Tamerlan’s about his involvement in the murders, Ibragim lethally attacked the agents leading them to shoot their suspect before the truth could be revealed 

A spate of beheading videos also date back to the time of journalist Daniel Pearl’s murder, allegedly at the hands of al Qaeda’s mastermind, Khalid Sheik Mohammed.  Likewise Chechen groups had been conducting beheadings long before this.  Such practices also proliferated during the Iraq invasion with hostages dressed in Gitmo orange filmed as they were beheaded in a horrific manner with demands made to release the Guantanamo prisoners.  Likewise a Muslim man in Buffalo, New York was accused of beheading his wife in 2009 and other such murders have also been reported.

Is there a symbolism to beheading that runs across all of these incidents? 

Looking to history and religious writings one finds that two verses in the Quran refer to smiting at the necks of one’s enemies but these are both commonly understood as referring to using deadly force in war.  Historically both Arabs and Christians beheaded their dead enemies on the battlefield as a symbolic act of victory.  And decapitation, as a form of criminal punishment was also used by both—occurring as late as 1977 in France and is still used in Saudi Arabia.

Terrorists who behead, due so to strike terror into civilian populations and into any who might oppose them and hope to use terror to try to force the political process to move in their favor.  Parviz Kahn who planned to kidnap a British Muslim soldier on leave in 2007 savored the idea of making him “squeal like a pig” and planned to film the innocent soldier’s beheading to cause panic among the general population and inhibit military recruitment. 

When these revenge attacks are carried out, it seems the idea is to slaughter a person much in the manner of cutting the throat of a sacrificial animal—perhaps unconsciously representing a rite of purification for the alleged “sins” of the victim or the group the victim represents.  Terrorists often refer to their victim as killing a “pig” which is of course an unclean animal for Muslims.  In any case the practice does incite terror and appears to be a type of ritualized murder by those who believe that through acts of terror they can cleanse the world of the “sins” of western governments’ actions—including military actions—that do in fact at times harm innocent civilians in Afghanistan and Iraq.  But of course these beheadings are only adding to the killing of innocents and doing little to change the course of politics.

The Militant Jihadi Ideology as a Short-Term Psychological Fix—Examining the Woolwich Murder of a British Soldier

When I made interviews with extremists and their supporters four and five years ago—in London, Birmingham and Leeds—I found many young immigrant descent Muslims expressed similar concerns to the recent murderer of a British soldier, Michael Abedolajo.  Many told me that they had distant relatives in Pakistan and Afghanistan and were deeply disturbed about them potentially being harmed by the British military.  While most did not endorse attacking their own country nor resorting to terrorist “solutions” on UK soil—many said they would feel compelled to aid Muslims under attack in Iraq or Afghanistan—even if it meant working against their own military.  And some told me that if push came to shove, they might even aid in an Afghani or Iraqi attack on British soldiers or a military installation inside the UK.  It seems the nightmare they foretold has now occurred only days ago.  The plot however is not completely new.

In 2007, four British Pakistani men living in Birmingham were imprisoned over a militant jihadi plot to kidnap and kill a British Muslim soldier home on leave.  Their plan was to film him in a blindfolded and handcuffed state—force him to demand the withdrawal of troops from Iraq—and then brutally behead him.  The objective was to terrorize British society and deter Muslims from joining the British army. 

In 2013, another British militant jihadi plot directed at serving soldiers was foiled by security services when three British-born men were also imprisoned for a plotting to explode bombs in Royal Wooton Bassett, a town where UK troops frequently parade after returning from service in Afghanistan. 

Now, this Wednesday—May 22, 2013 the loosely knit extremists who share a common al Qaeda referenced ideology got their wish. 

Two British men armed with machetes and meat cleavers brutally murdered Drummer Lee Rigby, a British soldier outside his base at the Royal Artillery Barracks in Woolwich. Perhaps even more horrifying than the murder itself—in which Rigby was beheaded—was that upon its completion the murderers, rather than fleeing the scene—stood calmly by as one of the murderers—twenty-eight year-old Muslim convert Michael Adebolajo asked witnesses to film his statements in which he attempted to justify their horrific crime.  As reported by the BBC, he told a female onlooker that he knew that his victim was a British soldier, “he wanted to start a war in London” and that he was “fed up” over British soldiers killing “Muslims over there”…“in Iraq and Afghanistan”.  

In this way Adebolajo mouthed the common al Qaeda narrative in which murderous actions are supposedly justified as righteous retribution for western military actions in Afghanistan and Iraq.  Apparently the two also shared the militant jihadi belief in the rewards of “martyrdom”—as they were clearly unafraid of dying and hung around to make statements after brutally butchering Rigby.  Neither assailant did die—or become “martyrs”.  The police arrived, shot and wounded the assailants in attempts to subdue them, arrested them, and they now lie recovering in hospital.

The second attacker is still unidentified, so only Abedolajo’s details are known.  According to the BBC, he was the son of Nigerian immigrants, raised in a devout Christian home and was described by friends as normal and even intelligent—but his life took a bad turn after he got involved in drugs during his teens —smoking “weed” and dealing drugs.  According to those who knew him, Abedolajo’s descent into drugs led him also into violent street crimes after which he apparently found answers in the virulent militant jihadi ideology—and converted to what he called—but many would not recognize as—Islam. 

Like many lost second generation immigrants in Europe who have gone before him, Abedolajo—who was first alienated, addicted to drugs and confused about foreign policy—appears to have found a short-term psychological fix to his derailed life and its accompanying psychic pain in the militant jihadi ideology.  As I have discovered in my over four hundred research interviews with terrorists and their supporters around the world—the militant jihadi ideology has this power to deliver psychological “first aid”—albeit offering only a short-lived solution to those in pain—as it often ends in their own death.  In Abedolajo’s case it apparently delivered to him, a strait laced code to live by that does have the power to rid one of drug addiction, alongside a new family of “brothers” to bolster his new world view—while at the same time also providing an almost euphoric belief in attaining the rewards of “martyrdom” for attacking the so called “enemies of Islam”.

Most likely Abedolajo’s derailed life was going nowhere and he confused his passionate care for civilian victims in Afghanistan and Iraq—a concern that many Muslims and non Muslims alike share—with the distorted al Qaeda claim that demanded he give his life and take part in terrorist violence to somehow wage—or has he put it “start a war”—in their behalf.   The Telegraph reports that he was believed to have already tried to join al-Shabaab in Somalia but was forced to return to Britain.  Apparently Abedolajo couldn’t find a way to self-actualize. For a young man who had little else going for him other than an apparent passion and identification with the wounds other Muslims around the world suffer—the euphoric high of “martyrdom” apparently became his new drug of choice.

The area he lived in—Woolwich, an area in south London was likewise derailed.  Formerly a thriving military and industrial town—home to the Woolwich Dockyard, Royal Arsenal, Royal Military Academy and Royal Horse Artillery—it has in recent years suffered considerable decline becoming an area where Somali and Nigerian drug gangs frequently clash with neo-Nazi skinheads. Indeed, Woolwich was already showing signs of trouble in July 2011, when riots and looting occurred, several buildings were attacked and destroyed, and fires caused serious damage.

Deranged enough in his beliefs to proudly proclaim his murderous actions as just—Abedolajo appears to have been convinced by terrorist instigators (Anjem Choudary and Omar Bakri Mohammed claim to be among them) that giving his life, while taking the lives of others would somehow lead to correcting the international grievances that concerned him.  What his terrorist ideologues failed to tell him—that attacking civilians or non-deployed military members on the streets of London or anywhere else—could never be justified according to any religion—nor bring about the hoped for political remedies he may have dreamed of.  The militant jihad could clean up his drug addiction, his newfound “brothers” could help him turn from a life of crime and provide a sense of meaning, camaraderie and false heroism. But at their core his instigators were not interested in anything other than sacrificing him to their cause—believing like him—that by enacting “martyrdom” he could exit this life to earn the rewards of paradise in the next.

While I spoke to extremists in London, I also had the pleasure during the same time period, of taking part in a retreat held for the thousand Muslim soldiers who were at the time serving in the British military—an event hosted by the learned Armed Forces Senior Imam Asim Hafiz.  While less than a hundred soldiers were in country and on leave to attend, I was impressed to meet so many extremely professional UK soldiers—all Muslim and most of immigrant descent—who expressed no qualms about the righteousness of their service in the British military. 

Instead they expressed concerns over the normal challenges of military service similar to soldiers of other religions and nationalities.  The only differences, from their non-Muslim counterparts that I recall witnessing during that weekend was that they refrained from drink, heartily partook of halal food, prayed in a lovely way together—even inviting me to take part if I wished, and the most fun of all—they taught me (an American) to play cricket!

I was struck, however by one essential difference from their non-Muslim counterparts.  A fair number admitted that they kept their military service secret from their family and community members.  When asked why, they said they had no moral misgivings over their service but feared facing social and religious condemnation, or even danger from their communities who would not accept their decision to enter the military.  So instead, they lived undercover and made up stories about being international businessmen with a frequent need for travel. 

Sadly, if terrorist instigators continue to infect lost young men like Michael Adebolajo convincing them that taking part in terrorist murders is a just way to champion any cause, even more UK soldiers are likely to chose to hide their profession and sadly more may fall prey to murders of this type.

Anne Speckhard, Ph.D. is Adjunct Associate Professor of Psychiatry in the Georgetown University Medical School and author of Talking to Terrorists: Understanding the Psycho-Social Motivations of Militant Jihadi Terrorists, Mass Hostage Takers, Suicide Bombers & “Martyrs” In the last decade she interviewed over four hundred terrorists, suicide bombers, terrorist supporters, family members, close associates and hostages.