Suicide, blocking resettlement & the British Army

Hey guys, Andy here. I am aware I frequently mention the term Moral Injury, a term I explored in my Veteran Advocates project, but I think it is worth delving into the term in more detail given recent events involving the suicide of Royal Artillery Gunner Jaysley Beck and UK Special Forces vetoing the resettlement applications of Afghan commandos. The suicide of a soldier may, at first glance, have little to do with the blocking of resettlement claims but they are, in effect, the same story.

In the case of Gunner Beck the Battery Sergeant Major who “pinned her down and tried to kiss her” only received a minor sanction. The Army service inquiry report said this was “possibly a factor that may have influenced her failure to report other events that happened subsequently”. Presumably this refers to (then Bombardier) Ryan Mason who sent Gunner Beck more than 4,600 messages confessing his feelings for her. The texts were sent between October and December 2021 with Gunner Beck found dead in her barracks at Larkhill Camp, Wiltshire, on 15 December of that year.

This week the Ministry of Defence (MoD) confirmed for the first time that UK Special Forces (UKSF) rejected resettlement applications from more than 2,000 Afghan commandos, known as Triples, so-called because of the CF 333 and ATF 444 designations. The rejection came at a time when a public inquiry was investigating allegations that British Special Forces had committed war crimes on operations in Afghanistan where the Triples were present and, if resettled, could have been compelled by the inquiry to provide potentially significant evidence. The MoD initially denied UKSF had been given power of veto over the Triples’ application, but then-Defence Minister Andrew Murrison was later forced to tell the House of Commons the government had misled parliament in its denials. By denying the resettlement applications, Triples have been beaten, tortured and killed by the Taliban since the group regained control of the country.

How does this relate to moral injury? Moral Injury is a term coined by American doctor and clinical psychiatrist Jonathan Shay. Interviewing Vietnam veterans, the term was based upon numerous narratives according to the perception of injustice as a result of leadership malpractice. As of 2002 Shay defined moral injury as a “betrayal of ‘what’s right’ in a high-stakes situation by someone who holds power.”

It is worth breaking this down; betrayal proposes a relationship based on trust. The betrayal may be a single act, or it may be death by a thousand cuts. Research indicates there is a tipping point where trust between the victim and the institution in which they serve has been lost to such an extent that the victim starts to deny any truth told them and believe everything they are told is a lie. High stakes, in regards to MI, does not suggest a poker game or a financial transaction per se but rather something such as your home, your career, or your life. And lastly, someone who holds power is someone in a position of authority, often a position in high public regard, or a position of respect.

Moral Injury was developed in response to the inadequacy of mental health diagnoses, such as post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). PTSD focuses on fear-related symptoms which trigger the body’s chemical fight or flight response, taking the body from zero to 200% in an instant. In comparison moral injury focuses on symptoms related to guilt, shame, anger, and disgust. 

Enduring negative emotions that result from betrayal or violation of values can lead to maladaptive coping responses including self harm, social withdrawal, and substance abuse. These emotions are often exacerbated by the fact that the “someone who holds power” is often defended by the institution in which the parties find themselves. Institutions regularly promote self and like minded people and these people are then prioritised over and above the victim who is then depicted as the guilty party and made to feel isolated and alone. And no matter how many times a morally injurious situation may occur, the pattern for the institution is to deny all such behaviour and claim the situation is a one off. It is easier to act thusly, against victims who have little to no voice compared to the someone in power, than openly admit the institution is at fault. 

In such situations, onlookers and witnesses tend to stay silent. Very few will raise their heads above the parapet in fear of their own careers and well being as speaking out against the system, even in the face of clear wrongdoing, can be isolating. It is common for peers to shun and ostracise such individuals for bringing the institution into disrepute. 

According to Shay, there is an expectation that power will be used in accordance to what is right. The loss of this social trust can lead to an expectation of harm and injustice which is corrosive to our sense of self, our capacity for relationships and our ability to view ourselves as ‘good people’. In such instances there is a danger of self condemnation that is linked to suicide. It is hard not to look at the suicide of Gunner Beck and the the actions by UKSF as a “betrayal of ‘what’s right’ in a high-stakes situation by someone who holds power.”

Moral Injury is still a newcomer in public discourse. As with all things, the naming and identification of something is the first step in healing, as illness can fester in the darkness. Naming it can encourage paths to recovery through increased understanding. In regards to moral injury and the link to values, it is not enough for the Army to say it has values, the Army needs to show it.