"I wonder if 'post-traumatic stress disorder' is not, in most cases, an euphemism for 'feeling guilty as shit after going to the other end of the planet to kill a lot of people'. "

You're an ass.

I don't think Ian's analysis is entirely unjustified, but certain PTSD is more complex than a moral conundrum, but a real trama caused by extreme events. The paranoia of having to deal with unknown, unnumbered potential combatants in an Urban or jungle warefare environment certianly takes a toll on its own, without any political or ethical baggage on top.

It's actually Gonzalo's post, but I empathize with the question. I think the point is this: PTSD is a particular cultural interpretation of the individual consequences of warfare. As with many illnesses, mental or physical, turning them into clinical conditions makes it easier to avoid engaging the underlying situations that produce them. More simply, I think Gonzalo's point is that the "preventative care" for PTSD is to avoid invading and occupying other countries in the first place. Or, differently put, PTSD implicitly presumes support for the military activity that produces it.

As Ian knows, I've been doing research on the Virtual Iraq PTSD project for the past year. I certainly have real problems with the rhetorical stance of many of these projects, but I don't question that PTSD a real disorder. Furthermore, the ICT team headed by anti-war Rizzo is interested in treating civilians as well as combatants. This same technology is used on people who have survived car crashes or terrorist attacks. Certainly, Gonzalo isn't alone in having some skepticism about whether or not PTSD is really the central issue. As Ann Kaplan's book on _Trauma Culture_ demonstrates, it's a peculiarly American particular feature of the broader culture (that also uses "addiction" in a similar way to bypass deliberation and ethical debate). But I wouldn't trivialize the importance of mental health services in any context, be it at a veteran's hospital or a refugee camp. One of the war crimes cases that took place in Iraq turned up because of a combat veteran seeking treatment for PTSD symptoms, so the diagnosis can reveal crimes . . . not just hide them.

On second thought, the notion of using simulations of combat scenarios as therapy for people who have fought and killed (or at least faced the potential of being killed) is somewhat unsettling. Its almost disassociative, you culture the notion that the traumatic experience is just another configuration, with people being parameterized object code, and suddenly it seems like a haunting nightmare rather than a soul-effacing reality.

With the war in Iraq making a sharp turn for the worst, soldiers returning with post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) has increased, and any way to cure this form of trauma would be useful to these who are afflicted with the disorder. In the short article posted by Water Cooler Games editor Gonzalo Frasca, he cites BusinessWeek's recent report on the technology (http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/jul2006/tc20060725_012342.htm?chan=innovation_game+room_game+room), but also adds his own bold statement about post traumatic stress disorder as a euphemism for "feeling guilty as shit after going to the other end of the planet to kill a lot of people". Clearly, he's making an antagonization on all the soldiers who are fighting for a cause and his next comment, which he sarcastically states as a sincere consideration for those with PTSD, furthers his thoughts on the matter. This disorder is no joke. People with PTSD are unable to function correctly and live normal lives as others do.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9215517884791507754&q=shellshock&hl=en

(Last few scenes of the video show soldiers with serious cases of PTSD)

It is understandable to make one's opinions heard but Gonzalo's frustration is misdirected. He should direct his attention to the political leaders who are sending troops to carry out what is believed to be 'liberation' in Iraq. Those who are fighting or have fought in the war have families, friends, and morals just as civilians do, but when sent into war, it is no longer necessarily a fight for what you are representing, but rather a fight for one's own survival. Gonzalo is just another person who is looking at the war from afar, seeing what the soldiers are representing from the news and the media (the politician's views), rather than what they are experiencing (the actual warfare and fighting).