Year Ten: Over 60% Of Afghans Suffer Mental Illness. Who Cares?

By Steve Hynd

If I were a well-known "progressive" military fanboy blogger, I would have titled this post something like "This is the Happy House" or "Welcome To My Nightmare" and topped the post with some belittling and mostly inappropriate music video to prove how switched on and hip I am. I'm not. This is shocking, disgusting, atrocious and ignored:

�This is a major problem,� Suraya Dalil, Afghanistan�s acting public health minister, told a ceremony in Kabul on World Mental Health Day. �More than 60% of Afghans are suffering from stress disorders and mental problems.�

...�There are only 200 beds for psychiatric services in the country, with only two psychiatrists in the country covering the entire population,� said WHO representative Peter Graaff.

Public health ministry spokesman Ghulam Sakhi Kargar Noryghli said the 60% estimate dated from a study carried out with the WHO in 2004.

�Since war has continued, poverty or economic problems have increased in some parts of the country. We believe that the number of those suffering from mental illnesses has increased and now it is more than 60%,� he said.

The population of Afghanistan is estimated at roughly 28 million.

As we enter Year Ten of false promises of "some small progress", this is the progress we have definitely made. More than 18 million people suffering from post-traumatic stress and other mental problems. It dwarfs the total number of drugged-up US servicemen with similiar problems, estimated to be as many as 600,000 after a decade of dumb interventionist occupations, who get far more attention from the media. But even that attention isn't very much.

Albert R. Hunt, executive Washington editor for Bloomberg News, writes to the NYT today to point out the debate deficit:

There is a total disconnect: The Woodward book depicts Afghanistan as a quagmire-to-be with no clear and coherent strategy. There are almost 100,000 young American men and women deployed there at an annual cost of $119 billion � almost three times the ultimate cost to U.S. taxpayers of the Troubled Asset Relief Program to rescue the financial system � and with casualties rising.

In Senate and House races all across the United States, the venue for debating important issues, the candidates are largely silent about the war, irrespective of their contest, region or party.

This absence from the agenda reflects the dominance of the economic concerns facing many Americans. It is also is a matter of political convenience: Democrats with reservations about the war do not want to criticize an already beleaguered president, and Republicans want to appear muscular and tough without providing any plan or specifics.

...It is reasonable to expect these candidates to discuss and debate how long we are willing to put our troops in harm�s way, at what cost in treasure and with what consequences. In a democracy, that is what elections are about.

In 2010, while brave young American men and women put their lives on the line halfway around the world , the politicians at home are flunking this test.

Instead we're debating O'Donnel's fake witchery, some dude who likes to play Nazi dress-up and whether the "professional Left" should continue to support Dem candidates who are suits full of bugger all.

Color me disgusted.