We Served Too—Remembering Civilian Sacrifices made in Behalf of our Country—Honoring those who Served alongside the Military in Conflict Zones and High Threat Security Environments

This Memorial Day all Americans send a heartfelt salute to all those warriors who fought and died so gallantly in recent and far off wars in behalf of our freedoms and safety.  In behalf of those who died, we can never thank them or their families enough for the ultimate sacrifice they made for our country.

Alongside that salute we now also need to begin to honor the oft forgotten civilians who also serve in war and high threat security environments alongside the military, supporting their efforts and working in concert with them—especially all those civilians who served in the two recent U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan—as many civilian workers have also lost their lives while serving our country.

While we don’t often remember the sacrifices of civilian workers in conflict zones, or have a holiday to commemorate their service, we do need to honor that they too serve their country. 

A little known fact is that in September 2007 there were more contractors in Iraq than combat troops.  According to a 2013 report of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction (SIGIR) reports that, “In September 2007, the United States had more than 170,000 combat personnel in Iraq as part of the counterinsurgency operation, with more than 171,000 contractors supporting the mission.”  These contractors are credited in the report for supporting “the counterinsurgency mission in unstable, yet strategically significant, areas such as Baghdad, Anbar, and Babylon provinces.” (Emphasis added)

Civilian contractor casualties it turns out may be one of the least known aspects of our recent wars. For instance, the Defense Base Act case summary report lists three hundred defense base act death claims filed for 2012 and since September 2001 it lists three thousand, three hundred and two civilian contractor deaths and ninety-one thousand civilian contractors injured in that time frame.  While not all of these deaths occurred in combat zones, the majority did.  Likewise not all of the civilian deaths are Americans—the Department of Labor does not release the names of the claimants or their nationalities so it is difficult to parse.  Many different nationalities—from Americans, Europeans and third world countries—serve our military and civilian efforts in conflict zones, with deaths and injuries spread across all.

As traditionally held military jobs have increasingly shifted to the private sector, including mess hall cooks, guards, drivers, interpreters, analysts, culture experts, trainers, etc. the risks to civilians serving inside conflict zones has also risen.  The New York Times reported in February 11, 2012 that, “More civilian contractors working for American companies than American soldiers died in Afghanistan last year for the first time during the war,” reporting that “at least 430 employees of American contractors were reported killed in Afghanistan: 386 working for the Defense Department, 43 for the United States Agency for International Development and one for the State Department”. 

Contractor deaths exceeded military deaths in Iraq in 2009 also and were nearly equal last year—fifty-four soldiers compared to forty-one contractor deaths according to the U.S. Department of Labor statistics.  Clearly civilians are just as likely to make the ultimate sacrifice as soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan—yet so few know about or recognize civilian service to our nation.

When, Major General Arnie Fields was asked to comment for our newly formed organization We Served Too—an organization that supports and honors American and international civilian service in conflict zones and high threat security environments—he had a lot to say on how the shift to asymmetrical warfare now places civilian workers in the same danger that front line soldiers traditionally faced.  He states:

The dynamics of war have considerably changed in recent years.  The past ten years have been most significant.  The parameters that have heretofore defined the battlefield—or battle space—have been dramatically altered.  Military commanders in Iraq and Afghanistan have learned early on that the conventional ‘front’ and ‘rear”, which in earlier wars defined the most dangerous areas of the battlefield and the safest, respectively, do not exist.  The enemy’s threat is virtually omnipresent.  Soldiers not in direct pursuit of the enemy are in almost as much danger as those who are.  This new paradigm, often referred to as asymmetrical warfare, places civilians assisting in the war effort in about as much imminent danger as the traditional uniformed warrior…For example, as a civilian department of State employee in Iraq and as the U.S. Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction, I wore my military flak jacket and helmet with more consistency while conducting my work than I did on active military duty in the Marine Corps.”  (Emphasis added).

Commenting on the medical aspects of service to our nation in conflict zones, Lt General Dr. Paul K. Carlton, Jr. also states “Military medicine has served as the tip of the spear in this conflict!
Our civilian medical system has been a superb partner to us and has to be
considered the shaft of the spear! They are integral to our entire effort!”
 

Indeed it is no longer only our military that are serving and sacrificing their lives in conflict zones.  As the Special Inspector General in Iraq pointed out in his 2013 report, government contractors, government civilian workers, nongovernment workers and even journalists are serving alongside our military and as Major General Arnie Fields states—while serving in asymmetrical warfare they may serve in equal danger to those previously considered to be in the “front” lines. 

While our military serviceman returning from Iraq and Afghanistan have faced shameful delays and nonresponsive replies from the Veterans Health Administration to get their claims covered—civilian contractors who return from the battle space with similar injuries—including limbs blown off, traumatic brain injury, PTSD, depression, traumatic bereavement and the like—have found they too have had to battle with the insurance coverage provided under the Defense Base Act (DBA)—a law requiring insurance coverage for those contracting with any agency of the U.S. government for work outside the U.S.

At present the recording of civilian contractor deaths in conflict zones is tought by many to be underreported and clearly these civilians die unheralded.  Likewise those who are wounded are finding it difficult to get their needs met. 

My wish today is for all service persons—civilian and military veterans alike—who return from our recent wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and from serving our great nation in other high threat security posts, to be honored—for their needs and those of their family members to be well taken care of, and for none of us to ever forget all those who served our country—civilian and military alike. 

In behalf of that, I and some other colleagues have begun an organization entitled We Served Too (www.WeServedToo.org) in order to honor and support civilian veterans of conflict zones and high threat security environments.  We are only on our first steps in that initiative, but invite you to join us in giving a hearty and respectful salute on this Memorial Day to all the civilians who also serve alongside their military counterparts and especially to those who gave the ultimate sacrifice.  May they be honored and never forgotten.

Anne Speckhard, Ph.D. is Adjunct Associate Professor of Psychiatry in the Georgetown University Medical School and author of Talking to Terrorists: Understanding the Psycho-Social Motivations of Militant Jihadi Terrorists, Mass Hostage Takers, Suicide Bombers & “Martyrs” In the last decade she interviewed over four hundred terrorists, suicide bombers, terrorist supporters, family members, close associates and hostages.

The Symbolic Nature of Terrorist Beheadings

In recent days we have horrifically witnessed the murder of Lee Rigby, a UK British soldier who served in Afghanistan–with many reporting that his murderer either attempted to, or actually beheaded him. In that case the murderer who stood around with his bloodied hands and machete admitted to his act and stated, “I am fed up with people killing Muslims in Afghanistan” and added that his motivations were revenge—“because Muslims are dying everyday.”

The same style of ritualized killing was attempted by Mohammed Bouyeri, the Dutch second generation Moroccan immigrant who murdered Theo van Gogh—the celebrated filmmaker who had participated in the film Submission critical of Islam’s treatment of women with Ayaan Hirsi Ali.  Bouyeri stabbed van Gogh eight times before cutting his throat, nearly decapitating him.  He then pinned a five-page letter to van Gogh’s chest with his knife. Bouyeri wanted revenge for van Gogh’s critical comments about radical Islamists who van Gogh had referred to as “goat-fuckers” and was outraged over the film “Submission”, in which a Muslim woman is shown half naked with Islamic verses written across her lash-marked back and under her breasts shown under a see-through veil. 

Weeks earlier, when Dzhokar Tsarnaev admitted that it was he and his brother Tamerlan who had set off the bombs killing and maiming many at the Boston Marathon, a brutal triple murder case was reopened to investigate if Tamerlan was involved.  In that case Brendan Mess, Tamerlan’s “best friend” and two of Brendan’s (Jewish) roommates—Erik Weissman and Raphael Teken had also been nearly beheaded.  Their murder took place on 9-11, 2011 and appears highly symbolic in that there was no forced entry, the date of the murder was the anniversary of the 9-11 attacks and no money was taken and drugs were sprinkled across the nearly beheaded victims’ bodies. As the FBI tracked clues into the case and questioned Ibragim Todashev, a friend of Tamerlan’s about his involvement in the murders, Ibragim lethally attacked the agents leading them to shoot their suspect before the truth could be revealed 

A spate of beheading videos also date back to the time of journalist Daniel Pearl’s murder, allegedly at the hands of al Qaeda’s mastermind, Khalid Sheik Mohammed.  Likewise Chechen groups had been conducting beheadings long before this.  Such practices also proliferated during the Iraq invasion with hostages dressed in Gitmo orange filmed as they were beheaded in a horrific manner with demands made to release the Guantanamo prisoners.  Likewise a Muslim man in Buffalo, New York was accused of beheading his wife in 2009 and other such murders have also been reported.

Is there a symbolism to beheading that runs across all of these incidents? 

Looking to history and religious writings one finds that two verses in the Quran refer to smiting at the necks of one’s enemies but these are both commonly understood as referring to using deadly force in war.  Historically both Arabs and Christians beheaded their dead enemies on the battlefield as a symbolic act of victory.  And decapitation, as a form of criminal punishment was also used by both—occurring as late as 1977 in France and is still used in Saudi Arabia.

Terrorists who behead, due so to strike terror into civilian populations and into any who might oppose them and hope to use terror to try to force the political process to move in their favor.  Parviz Kahn who planned to kidnap a British Muslim soldier on leave in 2007 savored the idea of making him “squeal like a pig” and planned to film the innocent soldier’s beheading to cause panic among the general population and inhibit military recruitment. 

When these revenge attacks are carried out, it seems the idea is to slaughter a person much in the manner of cutting the throat of a sacrificial animal—perhaps unconsciously representing a rite of purification for the alleged “sins” of the victim or the group the victim represents.  Terrorists often refer to their victim as killing a “pig” which is of course an unclean animal for Muslims.  In any case the practice does incite terror and appears to be a type of ritualized murder by those who believe that through acts of terror they can cleanse the world of the “sins” of western governments’ actions—including military actions—that do in fact at times harm innocent civilians in Afghanistan and Iraq.  But of course these beheadings are only adding to the killing of innocents and doing little to change the course of politics.

The Militant Jihadi Ideology as a Short-Term Psychological Fix—Examining the Woolwich Murder of a British Soldier

When I made interviews with extremists and their supporters four and five years ago—in London, Birmingham and Leeds—I found many young immigrant descent Muslims expressed similar concerns to the recent murderer of a British soldier, Michael Abedolajo.  Many told me that they had distant relatives in Pakistan and Afghanistan and were deeply disturbed about them potentially being harmed by the British military.  While most did not endorse attacking their own country nor resorting to terrorist “solutions” on UK soil—many said they would feel compelled to aid Muslims under attack in Iraq or Afghanistan—even if it meant working against their own military.  And some told me that if push came to shove, they might even aid in an Afghani or Iraqi attack on British soldiers or a military installation inside the UK.  It seems the nightmare they foretold has now occurred only days ago.  The plot however is not completely new.

In 2007, four British Pakistani men living in Birmingham were imprisoned over a militant jihadi plot to kidnap and kill a British Muslim soldier home on leave.  Their plan was to film him in a blindfolded and handcuffed state—force him to demand the withdrawal of troops from Iraq—and then brutally behead him.  The objective was to terrorize British society and deter Muslims from joining the British army. 

In 2013, another British militant jihadi plot directed at serving soldiers was foiled by security services when three British-born men were also imprisoned for a plotting to explode bombs in Royal Wooton Bassett, a town where UK troops frequently parade after returning from service in Afghanistan. 

Now, this Wednesday—May 22, 2013 the loosely knit extremists who share a common al Qaeda referenced ideology got their wish. 

Two British men armed with machetes and meat cleavers brutally murdered Lee Rigby, a British soldier outside his base at the Royal Artillery Barracks in Woolwich. Perhaps even more horrifying than the murder itself—in which Rigby was beheaded—was that upon its completion the murderers, rather than fleeing the scene—stood calmly by as one of the murderers—twenty-eight year-old Muslim convert Michael Adebolajo asked witnesses to film his statements in which he attempted to justify their horrific crime.  As reported by the BBC, he told a female onlooker that he knew that his victim was a British soldier, “he wanted to start a war in London” and that he was “fed up” over British soldiers killing “Muslims over there”…“in Iraq and Afghanistan”.  

In this way Adebolajo mouthed the common al Qaeda narrative in which murderous actions are supposedly justified as righteous retribution for western military actions in Afghanistan and Iraq.  Apparently the two also shared the militant jihadi belief in the rewards of “martyrdom”—as they were clearly unafraid of dying and hung around to make statements after brutally butchering Rigby.  Neither assailant did die—or become “martyrs”.  The police arrived, shot and wounded the assailants in attempts to subdue them, arrested them, and they now lie recovering in hospital.

The second attacker is still unidentified, so only Abedolajo’s details are known.  According to the BBC, he was the son of Nigerian immigrants, raised in a devout Christian home and was described by friends as normal and even intelligent—but his life took a bad turn after he got involved in drugs during his teens —smoking “weed” and dealing drugs.  According to those who knew him, Abedolajo’s descent into drugs led him also into violent street crimes after which he apparently found answers in the virulent militant jihadi ideology—and converted to what he called—but many would not recognize as—Islam. 

Like many lost second generation immigrants in Europe who have gone before him, Abedolajo—who was first alienated, addicted to drugs and confused about foreign policy—appears to have found a short-term psychological fix to his derailed life and its accompanying psychic pain in the militant jihadi ideology.  As I have discovered in my over four hundred research interviews with terrorists and their supporters around the world—the militant jihadi ideology has this power to deliver psychological “first aid”—albeit offering only a short-lived solution to those in pain—as it often ends in their own death.  In Abedolajo’s case it apparently delivered to him, a strait laced code to live by that does have the power to rid one of drug addiction, alongside a new family of “brothers” to bolster his new world view—while at the same time also providing an almost euphoric belief in attaining the rewards of “martyrdom” for attacking the so called “enemies of Islam”.

Most likely Abedolajo’s derailed life was going nowhere and he confused his passionate care for civilian victims in Afghanistan and Iraq—a concern that many Muslims and non Muslims alike share—with the distorted al Qaeda claim that demanded he give his life and take part in terrorist violence to somehow wage—or has he put it “start a war”—in their behalf.   The Telegraph reports that he was believed to have already tried to join al-Shabaab in Somalia but was forced to return to Britain.  Apparently Abedolajo couldn’t find a way to self-actualize. For a young man who had little else going for him other than an apparent passion and identification with the wounds other Muslims around the world suffer—the euphoric high of “martyrdom” apparently became his new drug of choice.

The area he lived in—Woolwich, an area in south London was likewise derailed.  Formerly a thriving military and industrial town—home to the Woolwich Dockyard, Royal Arsenal, Royal Military Academy and Royal Horse Artillery—it has in recent years suffered considerable decline becoming an area where Somali and Nigerian drug gangs frequently clash with neo-Nazi skinheads. Indeed, Woolwich was already showing signs of trouble in July 2011, when riots and looting occurred, several buildings were attacked and destroyed, and fires caused serious damage.

Deranged enough in his beliefs to proudly proclaim his murderous actions as just—Abedolajo appears to have been convinced by terrorist instigators (Anjem Choudary and Omar Bakri Mohammed claim to be among them) that giving his life, while taking the lives of others would somehow lead to correcting the international grievances that concerned him.  What his terrorist ideologues failed to tell him—that attacking civilians or non-deployed military members on the streets of London or anywhere else—could never be justified according to any religion—nor bring about the hoped for political remedies he may have dreamed of.  The militant jihad could clean up his drug addiction, his newfound “brothers” could help him turn from a life of crime and provide a sense of meaning, camaraderie and false heroism. But at their core his instigators were not interested in anything other than sacrificing him to their cause—believing like him—that by enacting “martyrdom” he could exit this life to earn the rewards of paradise in the next.

While I spoke to extremists in London, I also had the pleasure during the same time period, of taking part in a retreat held for the thousand Muslim soldiers who were at the time serving in the British military—an event hosted by the learned Armed Forces Senior Imam Asim Hafiz.  While less than a hundred soldiers were in country and on leave to attend, I was impressed to meet so many extremely professional UK soldiers—all Muslim and most of immigrant descent—who expressed no qualms about the righteousness of their service in the British military. 

Instead they expressed concerns over the normal challenges of military service similar to soldiers of other religions and nationalities.  The only differences, from their non-Muslim counterparts that I recall witnessing during that weekend was that they refrained from drink, heartily partook of halal food, prayed in a lovely way together—even inviting me to take part if I wished, and the most fun of all—they taught me (an American) to play cricket!

I was struck, however by one essential difference from their non-Muslim counterparts.  A fair number admitted that they kept their military service secret from their family and community members.  When asked why, they said they had no moral misgivings over their service but feared facing social and religious condemnation, or even danger from their communities who would not accept their decision to enter the military.  So instead, they lived undercover and made up stories about being international businessmen with a frequent need for travel. 

Sadly, if terrorist instigators continue to infect lost young men like Michael Adebolajo convincing them that taking part in terrorist murders is a just way to champion any cause, even more UK soldiers are likely to chose to hide their profession and sadly more may fall prey to murders of this type.

Anne Speckhard, Ph.D. is Adjunct Associate Professor of Psychiatry in the Georgetown University Medical School and author of Talking to Terrorists: Understanding the Psycho-Social Motivations of Militant Jihadi Terrorists, Mass Hostage Takers, Suicide Bombers & “Martyrs” In the last decade she interviewed over four hundred terrorists, suicide bombers, terrorist supporters, family members, close associates and hostages. 

We Served Too: Some Thoughts After Benghazi regarding Resilience of Civilians Deployed in Conflict Zones and High Threat Security Posts

Currently thousands of civilian workers –from military contractors, to civilian and foreign service workers (representing the Departments of State, Justice, Commerce, USAID, etc.), as well as reservists and former military who return to do civilian service, bravely serve our nation—deploying into conflict zones such as Iraq and Afghanistan and into high threat security posts such as Pakistan, Libya and elsewhere.  Last year four of these civilians, U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens, information officer Sean Smith, and two embassy security personnel Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty gave the ultimate sacrifice—these four were killed in Benghazi, Libya as they served our nation.

Soldiers are well trained and prepared psychologically to face armed conflict.  Civilian contractors, government servants and diplomats—who serve alongside and in support of our military—are not as well trained, prepared or supported pre, during and post deployment as their military counterparts.  Yet in recent years we see that they are deployed by the thousands, into uncertain and anxiety-provoking environments.  And these facts have serious implications for the psycho-social resilience and physical welfare of our civilian forces deployed in high threat security environments. 

 And in light of the deaths of a U.S. Ambassador and three of his colleagues, one must ask about the high number of civilians who are crucial to U.S. diplomatic, humanitarian and military efforts around the world—how are they being treated?  Are their sacrifices recognized, honored in any way?  Are they adequately prepared and trained prior to their deployments into danger zones, supported in theater, and are their needs being met once they return home—some of them physically injured or psychologically traumatized?   Or are they our unsung heroes, an invisible but massive civilian force serving without recognition for the sacrifices that they too have made in behalf of our nation—some of them struggling to recover without help after their service to our country?

We know that civilians serving in war and high threat security posts sustain injuries and psychological trauma just as their military counterparts do.  However, unlike wounded warriors who are—at least in theory—offered healthcare, rehabilitation and support services by the U.S. military, civilians who are maimed or psychological traumatized after serving in conflict zones or high threat security posts often find that they are on their own in regard to obtaining needed services.  And some find they must battle their insurance companies to get even basic needs addressed in terms of addressing their wounds sustained in service of our nation. 

Already in 2009, according to an LA Times report, many civilian contractors who served in Iraq and Afghanistan found themselves battling their insurance companies to get prosthetic devices for blown off limbs, mental health care, basic services and the like.  Moreover, the LA Times reported that over forty percent of claims regarding serious injuries and more than half related to psychological stress by these civilian heroes were rejected by their insurance companies[i].

While recent scandals with the U.S. Veterans Administration has brought to light the problems wounded warriors face when trying to get health care for medical care from artificial limbs to psychological treatment and other basic services from wounds sustained in service of our nation—no one it seems is asking what are the needs of those on the nonmilitary side of the house—the civilian workforce who also served.  Are they being met?

In an early effort to study these unsung heroes—the invisible workforce that both sustains and supports our military while also working alongside it in promoting diplomatic and humanitarian solutions, my NATO colleagues and I put together a pilot study of psycho-social resilience to traumas encountered in Iraq which was published in 2012.  In our pilot study we found that exposure to high-threat events including mortar fire, IEDs, bombings and sniper fire resulted in endorsements by respondents—often up to twenty percent—of posttraumatic and acute stress symptoms in these civilian workers including: peritraumatic dissociation, flashbacks and traumatic re-experiencing, feeling physically nervous with reminders of the event, amnesia for parts of it, avoidance behaviors, feeling alienated and isolated, emotionally numb, uneasy about the future, feeling jumpy and agitated, sleep disturbances, having difficulty concentrating, panic and anxiety, somatization, depression and even suicidal ideation.[ii]  Clearly on the psycho-social side many of these civilians paid a high price for service under threat.

To date, very little else has been done in terms of looking at and promoting the resilience of our civilians that serve in conflict zones and high threat security environments.  Today a small group of us launched a new initiative named We Served Too (found at www.WeServedToo.org) to begin to give better care and recognition to the needs of these civilian heroes and to raise awareness to their needs.  The initiative is only beginning but we believe that civilians serving in conflict zones and high threat security environments need a forum to tell their stories, share their pictures, tell their needs and to gain the recognition they deserve.  Just as we take care with our military, we must give care and attention to them as well—to study their needs and then adequately and fully prepare them for deployments, to support them while in theater, and to serve their needs from injuries (both psychic and physical) upon their return back home. 

As a civilian who served in her own small way in Iraq (supporting the U.S. Defense Department in building the Detainee Rehabilitation Program) and as a spouse of a U.S. diplomat who served in conflict zones, I want to say in behalf of all civilians who have given years of their lives in overseas service inside conflict zones and high threat security posts—service for which they paid a dear price—that we need also to proudly proclaim—We Served Too!

Anne Speckhard, Ph.D. is Adjunct Associate Professor of Psychiatry in the Georgetown University Medical School and author of Talking to Terrorists: Understanding the Psycho-Social Motivations of Militant Jihadi Terrorists, Mass Hostage Takers, Suicide Bombers & “Martyrs” In the last decade she interviewed over four hundred terrorists, suicide bombers, terrorist supporters, family members, close associates and hostages. She also conducted psychological autopsies with a Chechen colleague on over half of the 112 Chechen suicide bombers investigating what put them on the terrorist trajectory and what motivated them to explode themselves.

---

[i] Miller, Christian & Smith, Doug (2009) Injured war zone contractors fight to get care.  April 17, Los Angeles Times.

[ii] Speckhard, Anne; Verleye, Gino & Jacuch, Beatrice (2012) Assessing Psycho-Social Resilience in Diplomatic, Civilian & Military Personnel Serving in a High-Threat Security Environment during Counter-Insurgency and Counter-Terrorism Operations in Iraq.  Perspectives on Terrorism Volume 6 (3) http://www.terrorismanalysts.com/pt/index.php/pot/article/view/speckhard-assessing-psycho-social/403

Post Abortion Distress—The Politically Incorrect Trauma

The recent trial and guilty verdict of Philadelphia Dr. Gosnell for murdering three children delivered alive after late term abortions has raised the controversial issue of U.S. abortion rights once again. It also reminds me of years of research I conducted documenting high stress reactions to abortion and the inability of many to discuss this issue in a rational and caring manner.  Having interviewed and treated women with high stress responses—including posttraumatic stress disorders and traumatic bereavement—as a result of abortion, I found myself deeply embroiled in the politics of abortion versus a genuine concern with whether or not all women do well with, and find abortion a useful coping mechanism for a problematic pregnancy. 

As my research carefully documented what a high stress reaction to abortion looked like, I found myself facing such career blocks thrown in my path as having the head of the National Planned Parenthood office write a letter to Harper & Row asking them to not publish my book on the subject—and to have the contract I was about to be offered suddenly rescinded—what seemed to me to be a clear violation of my First Amendment rights.  As a result, I found myself presenting my research in academic circles in a defensive manner so much so that I began to talk about post-abortion traumatic stress responses as “the politically incorrect trauma”. 

Unfortunately the politics of arguing over abortion rights has made many blind to the fact that women fall all over the spectrum of potential psychological responses to abortion—and while some find it a useful coping mechanism, experiencing it with minimal distress—others are deeply distressed by it.  And among academics and activists there are those who for decades now have refused to admit that there are a group of women who do not do well with abortion—and are even psychologically harmed by it.  Yet the fact remains that some women are harmed by the “politically incorrect trauma”.

The potential traumatic stressors involved in abortion are many.  For most they involve perceiving the pregnancy as a human being and the abortion being experienced as a traumatic death event.  This is worsened if they have formed an attachment to the embryo or fetal child in that they likewise experience a traumatic severing of the maternal attachment bond and deep questions about what severing this bond then says about them as women and mothers. 

While many women feel none of this—others are deeply disturbed by abortions that they go through for various reasons.  And let us not forget that many women—particularly young women and victims of domestic abuse (by parents or spouses) are forced into abortions they do not want.   Far more women are forced into abortions than anyone likes to admit.

Abortions are also physically intrusive and frightening for some.  The cramping and suction or viewing of fetal remains can be terrifying for some.  And in some cases the traumatic nature of abortion is a result of the doctor who performs it—his or her abusive nature or failure to perform the procedure in a medically sound manner.

While we would hope that Dr. Gosnell—if he can even properly be referred to as a doctor—is the rare case, I have unfortunately heard too many first person stories of similar although lesser horrors. 

Many women have told me of pregnancies that were not properly dated as the doctor only did their examination once they had already paid for and were fully committed to their abortions—as in up in stirrups and fully prepped for it.  And as pregnancy by physical examination and recall of last menstruation is not as accurate as ultrasound, one woman I worked with found herself with an incomplete abortion—she left the clinic thinking she had been given a first term abortion—when in fact she went home with the head and shoulder of an aborted seventeen week fetal child still left inside. Likewise a nurse told me of a hysterectomy done on a woman in which a live fetus was removed along with her uterus—the doctor never bothering to tell his patient that he had mistaken a tumor for a live fetus that he had then removed under anesthesia along with her uterus.  One abortion clinic doctor in Wisconsin admitted performing an abortion on a woman who was so distraught that she had moved into a dissociated state during her abortion and was talking baby talk during the procedure.  That doctor apparently never thought to stop the procedure and deal with the distress of her patient.

Likewise I have argued for years that most U.S. based abortion clinics fail to obtain a true informed consent.  When a distressed woman shows up at their door she is in many cases asked to fill out paper work including signing an informed consent and to pay for her procedure prior to meeting with any health care provider.  And the abortion procedure is often explained in many clinics in group settings (in a mill like format) often by a non-medically educated informant who explains the procedure without explaining all the options, nor insuring that each group member understands how pregnant she is, and what the procedure entails. 

Most women at U.S. abortion clinics only meet their doctors once they are up on the table in stirrups—hardly a time to carry out a careful informed consent procedure—to have time to respond with any careful deliberation to accurate dating of her gestational stage, etc. Women also leave such clinics often with little understanding of what to expect in terms of possible negative outcomes—particularly psychological ones such as traumatic grief, acute stress responses, overwhelming guilt, etc.  And if they do feel traumatized by their abortions they often don’t want to return to the source of the trauma and don’t know where to turn.  These issues of course are compounded for underage minors who may be acting in an acute state of fear without the protective guidance of an adult that truly cares for their well-being.

Some years ago I attended a U.S. medical panel over which Dr. Nada Stotland presided—a psychiatrist who has for years denied that women can be traumatized by the actual experience of abortion.  She and the other panelists bemoaned the fact that medical schools could no longer force unwilling doctors to learn to perform abortions, and that young American doctors were increasingly finding providing abortions unsavory and that increasingly, ill-reputed doctors who were forced out of their practices by lawsuits and the like were becoming abortion providers—with all the attendant scandals that same with them.  Apparently Dr. Gosnell was of this ilk.

Today we see a doctor convicted of murder for taking the lives of fetuses he had just taken from the womb.  I’ve always wondered about the teenagers who get similar convictions for denying to themselves or possibly even dissociating the fact of their pregnancies—until they deliver—often in inconvenient circumstances—such as at a high school dance or party.  Totally in shock at the delivery of a full term infant they toss the child aside and when the evidence of the “trash can baby” catches up to them they also receive convictions for manslaughter.  Yet if they had gone for a late term abortion and the doctor had managed to end the fetal child’s life while still inside the teen’s body it would have been a medical procedure.  There’s something highly schizophrenic about that—hardly something we can expect a young troubled teen in a high state of distress to fully comprehend.

Likewise we must admit that abortion is often also used against women.  Women all over the world have been forced into abortions they didn’t want—in China because of the one child policy.  Likewise female fetuses have been the subject of massive gendercide in both China and India.  Here in the states, some women are forced and coerced into abortions they don’t want by family members and many women feel ill equipped to stand up to a partner who believes paying for an abortion absolves him of his duty to pay child support if the woman opts to carry the pregnancy to term.  When it comes to abortion far more women than we care to admit, face choice-less choices.

The truth is every abortion represents a crisis of sorts—a failure of some kind—birth control, relationship, timing, one’s ability to provide for self and baby, etc.  And every abortion says something about the society we live in—where parents don’t have access to good day care and may not have health insurance or the wherewithal to provide for their children.  Whether one sees abortion as a life option, tragic necessity or as violence, we need as a society to find useful ways to discuss abortion, the way it’s provided and its effect on women and society. 

Dr. Gosnell was a sick doctor.  But there is also something wrong with a public health system that received numerous complaints about him and seemingly for political concerns did nothing to stop him.

Politics have also stood in the way of good research being conducted to examine psychological responses in a nationally representative sample to all pregnancy outcomes: live birth, miscarriage, induced abortion, and still birth (and perhaps even including adoption).  I offered in 1987 to our National Center for Health Statistics a simple mechanism for collecting such data via a short interview to be attached to an already existing survey—but fear of the answers—on both sides of the issue staunchly squelched the idea.

The politics of abortion and our inability to objectively seek the truth on these matters in a rational manner have for years thwarted my attempts to collect objective, nationally representative data on postpartum pregnancy outcomes.  And feminist researchers like myself—who have tried for years to painstakingly document and truthfully address the fact that not all women do well with abortion, have been all but silenced. 

The truth is not all, but some women having abortions—are traumatized, have anxiety responses, panic disorders, depression, acute and posttraumatic stress responses, psychosis, traumatic bereavement, etc.  There is an entire spectrum of psychological responses to abortion and when some women don’t do well with it, or are even abused by their provider, and become traumatized—that trauma should not be one more statistic under the rubric of  “the politically incorrect trauma” just because we wish to keep all options open for all women.  We must be able to talk rationally about these issues and to conduct good research on the subject.

And we must acknowledge that some women don’t do well with abortion—and sometimes—rarely so—but sometimes—it’s because the person who provided it was a butcher.

Anne Speckhard, Ph.D. is Adjunct Associate Professor of Psychiatry in the Georgetown University Medical School and author of Fetal Abduction: The True Story of Multiple Personalities and Murder and Talking to Terrorists: Understanding the Psycho-Social Motivations of Militant Jihadi Terrorists, Mass Hostage Takers, Suicide Bombers & “Martyrs” She is also currently serving as the co-chair of the American Psychological Association, Division 48, Presidential Task Force on “Research Agenda on Abortion from a Peace Psychology Perspective”.

 

The Chechen Black Widows—Female Terrorists in al Qaeda and the Tsarnaev Brothers

As Tamerlan Tsarnaev’s body awaits a burial place and Dzhokar Tsarnaev a trial for charges of using weapons of mass destruction, the spotlight has temporarily been turned to the elder brother Tamerlan’s wife, Katherine Russell, whose computer has been found to have al Qaeda materials downloaded to it and whose kitchen and bathroom show traces of explosive materials indicating the brothers’ bombs were likely assembled in her home.  Katherine Russell, an all American girl who converted to Islam after falling in love with Tamerlan was married to him in June of 2010 and together they had a small child.

Russell claims that she knew nothing about her husband’s intentions and has, according to FBI informal reports, been working closely with them.  The possibility that Russell could also be a terrorist alongside her husband raises questions for many about the involvement of the female “Black Widows” –suicide operatives in the Chechen terrorist groups that following the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991, hijacked that republic’s secular independence movement turning it into a Chechen “jihad”.

During the early nineties when the Chechen secular rebel movement was met with a firm Russian response culminating in the first Chechen war of independence, the Chechen freedom fighters looked to the west for support.  Except for westerners decrying human rights violations, the Chechen freedom fighters didn’t find the support they hoped for.  But they did find—between the two wars of independence with Russia—an influx of foreign fighters coming victorious from the Afghan jihad—militants still euphoric over defeating the former USSR.  These foreign fighters were confident that they could declare and win a “jihad” in Chechnya as well.

Most notable among them was Saudi foreign fighter Khattab, who brought the nascent al Qaeda ideology along with the methods of “martyrdom” or suicide missions into the Chechen battle for independence.  He successfully convinced then rebel leader Shamil Basaeyev to change methods.  Khattab and other foreign fighters brought the ideology, themselves as trainers and funneled funds into the “Chechen jihad” changing it completely. And as a result starting in 2000, a long terrorist campaign grew up out of the Chechen rebel movement in which over thirty suicide missions were carried out involving over one hundred and twelve “martyrs” half of whom were women operatives who blew themselves up in subways, on airplanes, at checkpoints and most infamously who took over a Moscow theater of over eight hundred theater goers and the Beslan school, taking over twelve hundred hostages—mostly women and children. 

And what was perhaps most chilling about the Chechen terrorists was that they used women from the start.  The first Chechen suicide bombers were two young women who drove an explosive laden truck into their target.  Half of the hostage takers in Moscow were women dressed in long black Salafi style robes with bomb belts strapped to their waists—they were seen by journalist as women in mourning clothes when in fact they were dressed in conservative Islamic dress common to their extremist groups and they were wrongly dubbed the “Black Widows”. 

All the Chechen suicide bombers that we conducted psychological autopsies on (over half of the total) had lost a family member traumatically to the two wars but the women had lost not only husbands, but brothers and fathers as well—so many were widows, but some were simply traumatically bereaved and seeking revenge.  For Chechens this was the first time that women had been involved in revenge seeking behaviors – a domain in Chechen culture usually reserved only for the men.

As Chechens joined the militant jihadi ideology we found that they were instructed by their Middle Eastern teachers that they should fulfill their life duties before going on suicide missions—by marrying and having children—something that Tamerlan also did.  Likewise women were presented in their world view as useful for childbearing but the best “love” was presented as “brotherly” or homosexual lovemaking and women were presented as needing to be respected, but as unclean.  Basaeyev as well as other terrorist leaders also chose their wives strategically from among various areas and clans so as to guarantee protection when needed from their extended families.

The Chechen case gave us one of the first insights into how women carry out their roles in militant jihadi groups.  Thus far al-Qaeda central has been slow to use women—although two Belgian women were recruited into their ranks and one—a European descent white convert—Muriel Degauque carried out a suicide mission in Iraq.  Al Qaeda in Iraq also began to use female bombers toward the end when males could no longer pass the checkpoints and we have now seen them in Afghanistan as well.  But unlike in Chechnya where women joined the fighters in the forest and were suicide bombers from the beginning, al Qaeda has kept women in the roles of money carriers, instigators—some in Europe even offering themselves as a prize in marriage to potential “martyrs”, as translators of militant jihadi texts into the local languages and in some rare cases even as suicide operatives and trainers.  Women have yet to be fully activated in al Qaeda central. 

And although women joined right from the start in the Chechen case, we did not find them in leadership roles—men still call the shots when it comes to terrorism. Indeed in the Moscow theater hostage taking the women terrorists inside the theater (mercifully) did not detonate their bombs without an order from the men who were outside the theater proper—engaged in battle with Russian Special Forces.  Although the women could have blown the theater and all those held there to bits, had they felt the initiative to act on their own.

With Katherine Russell, we still wait to learn more.  She was a hardworking mother supporting her family—working seventy to eighty hours a week outside her home.  She may have been just like the many Palestinian family members I interviewed who were in complete shock upon learning their son or daughter had blown themselves up—and she may have failed to notice how radicalized and serious her husband had become about his extremist views.  Lack of knowledge and denial of the horrific is often a common attribute among close family members of terrorists.

Her case does however bring up a chilling parallel of the 7-7 London metro bomber, Germaine Lindsay’s widow—Samantha Lewthwaite—who also claimed innocence after her husband’s terrorist act, calling it “abhorrent”. Lewthwaite, also the mother of her “martyred” husband’s two children later turned up in Kenya leading and carrying out terrorist attacks against western targets.  Lewthwaite according to a UK police officer’s comments reported in the Telegraph to have written in her diary that the devoted wife of a mujahid (holy warrior) must realize that her “life in the hereafter promised to be sweeter because of her husband’s “sacrifice” and that a wife must be “discrete”, “obedient” and must understand that her husband’s calling meant that she and her husband would be cut off from their families.

Let’s hope the story of a terrorist’s wife and mother to his child doesn’t follow those same lines in the case of Katherine Russell who in any case must be suffering from a great deal of sadness and loss over her husband’s sudden heinous death.  And let’s hope that al Qaeda continues to be reluctant to use women operatives as time has proven they are the best at passing security checkpoints and lulling us into a false sense of safety. 

Anne Speckhard, Ph.D. is Adjunct Associate Professor of Psychiatry in the Georgetown University Medical School and author of Talking to Terrorists: Understanding the Psycho-Social Motivations of Militant Jihadi Terrorists, Mass Hostage Takers, Suicide Bombers & “Martyrs” In the last decade she interviewed over four hundred terrorists, suicide bombers, terrorist supporters, family members, close associates and hostages. She also conducted psychological autopsies with a Chechen colleague on over half of the 112 Chechen suicide bombers investigating what put them on the terrorist trajectory and what motivated them to explode themselves.

Is There Much More to the Tamerlan Tsarnaev Story than Meets the Eye? What is the Meaning of the Ritualized 9-11 Tenth Anniversary Murders of Three Young Men–One that Tamerlan Called his “Best Friend”?

Radicalized into an extremist form of Islam over the Internet and by perhaps also meeting with extremists in Dagestan and even in Boston it appears that Tamerlan Tsarnaev was the main instigator behind the Boston marathon bombings–bringing his younger brother along with him into his murderous acts.

As the facts of the case are still being uncovered it looks like Tamerlan Tsarnaev, a young man who came out of the Chechen conflict was perhaps carrying traumatic memories in his heart and was well aware of the civilian casualties and human rights atrocities there–even having lived through some of them. And perhaps feeling sympathy for Muslims in other parts of the world who also live under oppression, he fell prey to the al Qaeda militant jihadi ideology that claims Muslims are under attack by western powers and urges Muslims to do something about it.

From his Internet record it appears that on his road to extremism Tamerlan felt particular empathy for the rebel uprising in Syria that was being crushed with a high civilian death toll by Assad, as was the Chechen uprising crushed by Putin. We know that Tamerlan entered this country a vulnerable individual–an asylum seeker with likely sympathy for Muslims under attack and somewhere–either in his Internet browsing, trip to Dagestan or even in Boston–he encountered a virulent ideology espoused by a worldwide terrorist group as well as social support for buying into a sick narrative.

Tamerlan was also stymied in his pursuit of the American dream. His father, a former official in the Kyrgyz prosecutor’s office struggled to make it here–demoted to a car mechanic working outside in the cold. His parents divorced, his mother was arrested for shoplifting and they both left the country. Excelling as boxer, Tamerlan found his dreams dashed as well. In 2010 he was blocked from continuing to compete by his immigration status following a change in the boxing tournament rules. Once a flamboyant, cocky upstart known to enjoy partying, Tamerlan became dejected and retreated into a conservative form of Islam–rejecting those who had rejected him–and he then slipped somewhere along that path into extremism.

But is this the whole story in his case?

It appears not so, as the reopening of a triple homicide in Boston, occurring on 9-11-2011 is also raising some other troubling questions about Tamerlan Tsarnaev.

The homocides involve the murder of three young men–two Jewish and the third, Brendan Mess–a young man who Tamerlan had formerly introduced at his boxing gym as his “best friend”. The men were murdered in their apartment on a highly symbolic date–the tenth anniversary of the 9-11 al Qaeda attacks. There was with no forced entry–it appears the young men opened their door to a familiar person. $5000 was left on the scene of the crime indicating it was not a robbery. And the men each had their throats slit–in the same manner in which Mohamed Boyeri of the Netherlands ritually murdered Theo van Gogh, a man who Boyeri viewed as an apostate. Some reports state that the three were nearly beheaded–a crime common among Chechen terrorists. And marijuana was sprinkled over their bodies. It seems the crime was meant to convey a message–about the corrupting power of the west, drugs and a militant jihadi answer–of annihilation and destruction.

Tellingly, after the murder of his “best friend” Tamerlan did not attend the funeral and self isolated–he stopped going to the gym. He was already at that time a “revert” for a couple of years to a more conservative form of Islam than is practiced in his home country–except by extremists–and he had backed off of drinking, changed his dress and lifestyle. He had also argued with some of his family members about his views of Islam, expressing extremist’s views, calling one uncle an infidel and telling them that Allah had a plan for him–that he no longer had a need to concern himself with work or studies. And within three months of the murders he disappeared to Dagestan only to reemerge in July 2012 apparently with an ugly plot forming in his mind.

Is there a connection between the 9-11 murders of Tamerlan’s “best friend” and his roommates? Was theirs a ritualized Takfiri murder similar to beheadings carried out by al Qaeda affiliated groups throughout the world, Chechen terrorists and others expressing their murderous rage at the west? Had Tamerlan–perhaps like many trauma survivors or those stressed by immigration–tried to calm his nerves by drinking or using drugs? But then after having lived outside of Islamic rules in the west later decided to clean up by “reverting” to a conservative form of Islam, fall into extremism and in doing so blamed the west for corrupting him–then seeking to destroy it? Or was he angry about his brother’s marijuana use and striking out at those who may have supplied him?

Certainly the April bombings point to a young man who was filled with a self righteous hatred that allowed him to strike out at innocent men, women and children–maiming and killing them with no sense of conscience. Did this hate have some of its origins in either his or his brother’s drug use and a wish to destroy those who he blamed for corrupting him?

These are questions that still remain unanswered but beg to be more thoroughly investigated by the authorities.