Are American and French Soldiers Equal When it Comes to “Being Driven Crazy”?

Are the two armies facing the same type of crazy and criminal acts by soldiers? The question is asked after a new drama committed on March 11 thrust the U.S. Army into the limelight. A 38-year-old sergeant, a family man, got up in the middle of the night and left his base to go assassinate 16 civilians in a neighboring Afghan village. Some weeks before, the video of GIs urinating on the corpses of insurgents had provoked a shock wave across the world. It reminded us of the sad images of the mistreatment of Abu Ghraib prisoners in 2004 in Iraq — but also of the photos of German soldiers playing with skulls in Afghanistan in 2003.

French officers to whom we have asked the question, and whom cannot identify themselves publicly when talking about such sensitive subjects, showed strong caution: “In the French Army we sometimes have a tendency to think that we essentially have morals, but we are not exempt from this type of ‘being driven crazy.’ Perhaps they are more stifled compared to other armies. Perhaps we have also learned from the Algerian War,” said one of them.

20 Percent of Soldiers Suffer from Psychological Problems

“We must be very modest,” commented General Benoît Royal, former Head of Army Communication and author of books on military ethics. Recent events can testify to this: the murder of four people by a French legionnaire in Chad in 2009 or the lynching of an Ivory Coast native road cutter in 2005, for which four former servicemen will stand trial in Paris at the end of 2012. The number of these cases seems more limited than the acts which have hit American headlines, but French forces have 30 times less troops than their counterparts across the Atlantic in the theaters of war.

Medical studies have measured the psychological impact of warfare on active soldiers. These studies concluded that, on average, 20 percent of soldiers suffer from psychological problems. Generally, those studied are returning from war. A study conducted between three and six months after units had returned from Afghanistan (a period identified as “critical”) by French Army health services in 2012 showed that 9 to 26 percent of combatants declared of their own accord that they had been faced with a traumatizing event. Many refuse follow-up care. Amongst those who had received a physical injury, doctors say that a large majority, 80 percent, are in a state of stress, of which nearly one-third have chronic stress.

Soldier preparation, deployment and return conditions could partly explain the way in which they react. American soldiers can be deployed for 12 to 14 months, a duration deemed insane by their French counterparts. The soldier accused of the murder on March 11 had been chained to missions in Iraq and Afghanistan for over 30 months, an impossible situation for a Frenchman. For Afghanistan, conflict which has marked the return of hard fighting for the French Army, the senior officers decided that from 2008 on, troops would only be deployed for a maximum of six months. A minimum period of one year should be met before redeployment, with the exception of voluntary decisions. There are only a few special exceptions to this rule. The French Army instituted, for those returning from Afghanistan, a three-day “quarantine” in a large tourist hotel in Cyprus; meetings with psychologists and relaxation techniques are used to soften the shock of returning home.

“Abandoned” Soldiers

Differences in the preparation of young recruits could also play a role in future operational behavior. In the end, both medical supervision and the supervision of commanding officers are accountable. Since 2004, the French Army has implemented divisions of psychological intervention at bases. Then, for Afghanistan, it has a “referral” system for each fighting unit, which could play a role in early detection. Psychiatrists rotate between units in the field. An important point: Contrary to American military psychiatrists integrated in the chain of command, French doctors remain outside the system, a crucial point for medical confidentiality and patient privacy. These efforts remain insufficient with regards to the scope of soldiers’ needs. “Many soldiers complain that they are still often being abandoned,” witnesses an officer. “It’s up to the servicemen to ask for help; however this remains very difficult for them to admit they need. Finally, many continue to depend on the merits of their direct superior and their ability to speak with their men.”

More widely, is the culture of war in each nation relevant? General Royal maintains that it is. “Since the Algerian war we have had an ethical reflection, and from real debates, our soldier’s code has incorporates these achievements.” The American code, named “Soldier’s Creed,” was modified in 2003. It notably says: “I will never accept defeat” and “I stand ready to deploy, engage, and destroy, the enemies of the United States of America in close combat.” The French code contains these phrases: “He accomplishes his mission with willingness to win and to conquer, and if necessary at the peril of his life;” and “master of his strength, he respects the adversary and watches to save the populations.” Two different approaches.

However, an officer puts into perspective, “the way of dehumanizing the enemy is a constant of all conflicts, and psychological difficulties of war are not new.” For many servicemen, the only new thing is the exacerbated sensitivity of public opinions toward these realities.