(by Robert D. Clark, Ph.D.)
Professor, International & School Psychology

The topic of veterans is an acutely personal one for me. My brother and I followed each other in our tours of duty in Vietnam. Though we both were disabled during our service, Tom, now deceased, suffered far greater harm. My disability was mostly physical, while Tom’s cut to the heart of how he perceived himself as a person, and cast an ever-present shadow over his remaining years. To paraphrase Heraclitus’ famous quotation, one never steps back into the same life following experience in war. That was true of my brother as it is for all veterans before and since.

The television mini-series, The Pacific, chronicling battles of the Pacific theater during World War II, premiered in March on HBO. It was reminiscent of a series aired a decade ago, Band of Brothers, which followed E Company from 1942 to the final days of the war in Europe. The United States was involved in World War II for less than four years, but during the intervening decades, the war has inspired countless books, movies, plays, and retrospectives. It was called the “Good War” by Studs Terkel, while those who lived, fought, and died during that era have been immortalized by Tom Brokaw as “The Greatest Generation.” Depictions of World War II reflect an illusion of clarity and rightness of the cause unmatched in the intervening conflicts.

The title of this essay is taken from a 1973 Time magazine article, published shortly before I was discharged from the Air Force. It begins:

“Veterans of World War II returned to a grateful, generous country that was about to embark on an unprecedented quarter-century of prosperity. Korean War veterans cashed in on much the same rising curve of material benefits. Vietnam vets, by contrast, are the dubious beneficiaries of the nation’s immediate troubled past and uneasy future.

Flash forward: The United States is again engaged in a war on two fronts, Iraq and Afghanistan. Unlike the war portrayed on television, these ongoing wars are more reminiscent of that one fought in the jungles of Southeast Asia. The extended years of conflict and continuous deployments weigh heavily on the lives of military personnel and their families. Further, the frustrations inherent in the indeterminate nature of the “enemy” and the mission creep contribute to the feeling of endless conflict and illusory resolution.

Fortunately, today’s active duty military personnel and veterans are held in higher regard than were my contemporaries four decades ago. Though the term “hero” is cheapened by its profligate use in too many contexts and situations, the heroism and devotion to duty of today’s military is of equal gauge to service personnel at any time in our nation’s history. My fear as I write today is that the nature of contemporary war is grossly misunderstood, and the toll it takes on military personnel and their families remains underappreciated. We are all too easily inured by the media reports of military deaths and disfiguring injuries. We let ourselves become detached and unengaged; in a sense we defer responsibility to others far removed from our comfortable daily lives.

I chose to become a psychologist following my military service in part to give back to my contemporaries, but perhaps more importantly, to learn more about human motivation—my own included—and response to stress. I am optimistic that psychology can contribute in significant and meaningful ways in the intervention and prevention of the causes of societal strife. One small step has come with the inauguration of the first doctoral program of its kind in the world, the Ph.D. program in International Psychology. I believe we have an obligation, as Albee stated many years ago, to give psychology away. To me that means harnessing the power of our discipline and focusing it on the small and the big issues in our society. The world, personal and societal, that Tom and I left to go to Vietnam was neither the same one we stepped back into upon our return to “the world” nor were we the same naïve young men. It is our obligation today to simultaneously address the mental health needs of those involved in conflicts and to work to prevent such future conflicts.