<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
    <channel>
        <title>Comments for Here at Fort Leavenworth, and elsewhere...</title>
        <description>We&apos;re the Military and Airpower Guys of Jonah Goldberg of National Review Online + a stray we found wandering around looking lost.  All original material JHD, BHD, JR, WT,  and KA 2003-2010</description>
        <link>http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2009/11/here_at_fort_le.html</link>
        <atom:link href="http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2009/11/here_at_fort_le_rss.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />

        <lastBuildDate>Sat, 24 Mar 2012 15:10:34 Z</lastBuildDate>
        <generator>Movable Type 4.12</generator>
        <language>en</language>
        <copyright>Copyright 2012</copyright>
        <docs>http://www.rssboard.org/rss-specification</docs>

        <item>
            <title>Here at Fort Leavenworth, and elsewhere...</title>
            <description><![CDATA[...the strain of eight years of combat with no immediate end in sight manifests itself in many ways, quick anger chief among them.&nbsp; I've seen officers struggling to keep their tempers in check in briefings, exercises, and experiments - in ways that are noticeable, and occur more often than previously. I watched a Major simply detonate on a security guard at the Lewis and Clark building who was simply doing his job and not with any overbearing overtone, either.&nbsp; It's not manly to keep it bottled up.&nbsp; And it's not helpful to just tell your fellow soldiers to man-up and...]]></description>
            <link>http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2009/11/here_at_fort_le.html</link>
            <guid>http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2009/11/here_at_fort_le.html</guid>
            <pubDate>Mon, 23 Nov 2009 07:31:16 -0600</pubDate>
        </item>

        
        <item>
            <title>Comment from RetRsvMike on 2009-11-23</title>
            <description>
                <![CDATA[Arkay is correct...&nbsp; last time i saw the questionnaire was in '08, and it had been appropriately modified, and S-2 / Security Managers were very well synched up on it.<br />]]>
            </description>
            <link>http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2009/11/here_at_fort_le.html#comment-95769</link>
            <guid>http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2009/11/here_at_fort_le.html#comment-95769</guid>
            <pubDate>Mon, 23 Nov 2009 19:25:52 -0600</pubDate>
        </item>
        
        <item>
            <title>Comment from FbL on 2009-11-23</title>
            <description>
                <![CDATA[<em>But it's more of a loop than a simple hierarchy.<br />
</em><br />
Reminds me of something said at the Leadership panel at the veterans conference I attended:&nbsp; Something along the lines of the idea that Man &amp; Mission could not both be first (nor could you always have one over the other), but that leadership was a string of decision points wherein you have to temporarily put one over the other according to the current needs.&nbsp; I thought that was a good explanation...<br />
<br />]]>
            </description>
            <link>http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2009/11/here_at_fort_le.html#comment-95764</link>
            <guid>http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2009/11/here_at_fort_le.html#comment-95764</guid>
            <pubDate>Mon, 23 Nov 2009 17:21:06 -0600</pubDate>
        </item>
        
        <item>
            <title>Comment from Grimmy on 2009-11-23</title>
            <description>
                <![CDATA[I've always thought of mental health issues in the military as a low order leadership issue. If an NCO, SNCO or company grade officer identifies someone in need of such help, then it is their duty as leaders to whatever it takes to ensure that someone gets that help, even if it means grabbing them by the collar and &quot;leading&quot; them to the help.<br />
<br />
Same goes for the leaders. Self awareness is a necessary leadership trait. A leader who doesn't keep up with his own self-inventory aint a good leader. A leader who can't take care of himself can't take care of his men either.<br />
<br />
The usual order of importance is:<br />
Mission First<br />
Your Personnel Second<br />
Yourself Last<br />
<br />
But it's more of a loop than a simple hierarchy.<br />
<br />
If your men are going over the edge into darkness, you can't accomplish the mission. If you're not walking the walk on keeping yourself away from that edge, you can't keep your men from it and therefore, can't accomplish the mission.]]>
            </description>
            <link>http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2009/11/here_at_fort_le.html#comment-95761</link>
            <guid>http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2009/11/here_at_fort_le.html#comment-95761</guid>
            <pubDate>Mon, 23 Nov 2009 13:54:43 -0600</pubDate>
        </item>
        
        <item>
            <title>Comment from MikeD on 2009-11-23</title>
            <description>
                <![CDATA[Even in my day (92-97) the key to the clearance was &quot;honesty&quot;.&nbsp; Hell, you could pretty much have robbed a bank, but so long as you fessed up to it, completely and truthfully (and convinced them you never ever would do it again), you got/kept the clearance.&nbsp; The big thing they were looking for is &quot;are you hiding something&quot;.&nbsp; If you answered a single question dishonestly (i.e. you didn't just 'forget' but actively lied about it) no more clearance.&nbsp; If you were up front about it, they didn't worry about you.&nbsp; The reason?&nbsp; You can't be blackmailed by something that's not a secret.<br />
<br />
I knew a guy who hit a bad patch and were in some pretty heavy debt.&nbsp; He went to command and was up front about it.&nbsp; &quot;Sir, I'm in over my head and need help.&quot;&nbsp; That guy kept his clearance.&nbsp; The dude who bounced checks and LIED about it?&nbsp; Yanked.&nbsp; I'm almost certain that if you seek counselling for PTSD, and tell the TRUTH about it on your paperwork, you'll keep the clearance.&nbsp; They'll only worry about you if they think you've got something to hide.&nbsp; Because THOSE are the guys who are at risk of being blackmailed.<br />]]>
            </description>
            <link>http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2009/11/here_at_fort_le.html#comment-95755</link>
            <guid>http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2009/11/here_at_fort_le.html#comment-95755</guid>
            <pubDate>Mon, 23 Nov 2009 12:04:39 -0600</pubDate>
        </item>
        
        <item>
            <title>Comment from John of Argghhh! on 2009-11-23</title>
            <description>
                <![CDATA[The question was still in there when I did my last update, three years ago.&nbsp; Be interesting to see if it's there in seven years when I do my (hopefully last) update.<br />
<br />
Of course, if the lottery tickets ever come in, I've *done* my last update.]]>
            </description>
            <link>http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2009/11/here_at_fort_le.html#comment-95753</link>
            <guid>http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2009/11/here_at_fort_le.html#comment-95753</guid>
            <pubDate>Mon, 23 Nov 2009 11:24:49 -0600</pubDate>
        </item>
        
        <item>
            <title>Comment from MAJ Arkay on 2009-11-23</title>
            <description>
                <![CDATA[Y'all are behind the times.&nbsp; Responding to the problem of folks returning from a combat zone and not getting the mental health counseling they needed, DoD changed its clearance adjudication rules, and also got the Office of Personnel Management to change its rules and the SF-86, Questionnaire for National Security Positions.&nbsp; The relevant question has been changed to read:<br />
<br />
Mental health counseling in and of itself is <strong>not a reason</strong> to revoke or deny a clearance.&nbsp; In the last seven years, have you consulted with a mental heath care professional regarding an emotional or mental health condition or were you hospitalized for such a condition?&nbsp; Answer &quot;no&quot; if the counseling was for any of the following reasons and was not court-ordered:&nbsp; (1) strictly marital, family, grief not related to violence by you; or (2) strictly related to adjustments from service in a military combat environment.]]>
            </description>
            <link>http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2009/11/here_at_fort_le.html#comment-95752</link>
            <guid>http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2009/11/here_at_fort_le.html#comment-95752</guid>
            <pubDate>Mon, 23 Nov 2009 10:54:46 -0600</pubDate>
        </item>
        
        <item>
            <title>Comment from AFSister on 2009-11-23</title>
            <description>
                <![CDATA[Joe-<br />
Yes, and no.<br />
<br />
My brother went through a mental rough spot a few years ago that nearly got him kicked out of the Air Force.&nbsp; Saying it was a &quot;mental rough spot&quot; is putting it mildly, but one of the things that made it worse was losing his clearance. &nbsp;He lost his clearance to do his job, because his personal life was in shambles and he couldn't handle it.&nbsp; It made things worse for him, knowing that his work life was also now in shambles.&nbsp; We all understood they didn't want someone as distracted and angry working on airplanes, but it was hard to take none the less.&nbsp; However... he fought back, and has even been promoted since then.<br />
<br />
When you talk to senior officers about the mental health issues faced by their soldiers, *most* are more concerned with getting them the help they need rather than kicking them to the curb.&nbsp; The attitude seems to be &quot;get the help they need to return them to duty- both at work, and on the homefront.&quot;&nbsp; It still takes a lot of courage to be honest and speak up, but the military is much more open and understanding about mental illness than ever before, imho.]]>
            </description>
            <link>http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2009/11/here_at_fort_le.html#comment-95751</link>
            <guid>http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2009/11/here_at_fort_le.html#comment-95751</guid>
            <pubDate>Mon, 23 Nov 2009 10:23:22 -0600</pubDate>
        </item>
        
        <item>
            <title>Comment from Chris H. on 2009-11-23</title>
            <description>
                <![CDATA[JoeC,<br />
<br />
The plural of anecdote is...blah, blah. In my personal experience only (20+ yrs. of varied clearance levels), &nbsp;shrinkage is not a clearance killer. Perhaps in the Cold War days of the 600 ship Navy, when Sailors were expendable, this was true but no longer. Add to that the stated intentions of the service chiefs that careers will not be affected for those who ask for help and I think we can lay that old sea story to rest.<br />
<br />
r/<br />
<br />
Chris<br />
<br />]]>
            </description>
            <link>http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2009/11/here_at_fort_le.html#comment-95747</link>
            <guid>http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2009/11/here_at_fort_le.html#comment-95747</guid>
            <pubDate>Mon, 23 Nov 2009 09:21:39 -0600</pubDate>
        </item>
        
        <item>
            <title>Comment from John of Argghhh! on 2009-11-23</title>
            <description>
                <![CDATA[Joe - welcome to the &quot;Great Hall Echo&quot; at Castle Argghhh!<br />
<br />
No need to apologize, it happens to everybody, and in truth, it's pretty much never the commenter's fault.<br />
<br />
It's server gremlins that are apparently unkillable.]]>
            </description>
            <link>http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2009/11/here_at_fort_le.html#comment-95746</link>
            <guid>http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2009/11/here_at_fort_le.html#comment-95746</guid>
            <pubDate>Mon, 23 Nov 2009 09:16:15 -0600</pubDate>
        </item>
        
        <item>
            <title>Comment from John of Argghhh! on 2009-11-23</title>
            <description>
                <![CDATA[Joe&nbsp;- yes, the questions are still there.&nbsp; But there always has been, I think, a more nuanced understanding than the binary proposition.<br />
<br />
Context matters, as does the particular problem and whether or not there is progress.&nbsp; The problem, of course, is sorting out the Major Hasan's from the Major Hall's.<br />
<br />
But in reality - who's judgement is most suspect - the guy who won't seek help, or the guy who does?<br />
<br />]]>
            </description>
            <link>http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2009/11/here_at_fort_le.html#comment-95744</link>
            <guid>http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2009/11/here_at_fort_le.html#comment-95744</guid>
            <pubDate>Mon, 23 Nov 2009 09:05:25 -0600</pubDate>
        </item>
        
        <item>
            <title>Comment from JoeC on 2009-11-23</title>
            <description>
                &quot;would ruin their careers and cause them to lose their security clearances,&quot; 

Question: Doesn&apos;t it?  

I know the doctors want the visits to be confidential, but don&apos;t the forms pointedly ask &quot;Have you been treated for mental illness?&quot; &quot;have you at any time in your past been treated for depression, anxiety or seen a mental health professional?&quot; If yes, please explain the circumstances. List the professional. Attach additional sheets if necessary.

&quot;Are you currently being treated for depression, anxiety, PTSD, hypochondria, faith in GAIA, beief in the tooth fairy, et.c, etc., etc.&quot;

(Made that one up I  think. It has been a long time.)

(been away from all things secure for decades) But, when I had a clearance, that was the whispered truth.  See a shrink, lose your clearance.  I don&apos;t know if that was a truth or not, but there sure appeared to be a lot of &quot;friend of a friend knew someone who lost their clearance and was escorted out&quot; after seeing a counselor.

Just wondering....

(And the answer is: &quot;NO&quot; despite the online email moniker. I may be crazy but I ain&apos;t totally stupid... even when posting questions like that in the comments section on a blog. Heh.)
 
            </description>
            <link>http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2009/11/here_at_fort_le.html#comment-95741</link>
            <guid>http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2009/11/here_at_fort_le.html#comment-95741</guid>
            <pubDate>Mon, 23 Nov 2009 08:24:32 -0600</pubDate>
        </item>
        
        <item>
            <title>Comment from FbL on 2009-11-23</title>
            <description>
                <![CDATA[That is just fantastic!&nbsp; <br />
<br />
Several things lately have had me thinking about how the Marines have dealt with mental health issues in recent years, and it's so great to see the Army stepping up with a strong, high-profile campaign, too.<br />]]>
            </description>
            <link>http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2009/11/here_at_fort_le.html#comment-95740</link>
            <guid>http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2009/11/here_at_fort_le.html#comment-95740</guid>
            <pubDate>Mon, 23 Nov 2009 08:13:50 -0600</pubDate>
        </item>
        
    </channel>
</rss>


