Last Thursday, the Army's Vice Chief of Staff, General Peter Chiarelli, contradicted statements concerning Army suicides made two weeks earlier by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Michael Mullen, as well as the findings of at least two previous Army reports.

After publicizing sobering statistics last week that highlighted the skyrocketing suicide rate in the Army, Gen. Chiarelli answered questions during a Blogger's Roundtable. He said the following:

And even when you take that number, the rational person might think that the more deployments, the more likely you are to commit suicide; but we saw exactly the opposite.

A certain resiliency seems to grow in an individual who has multiple deployments, and we actually see the percentage of suicides for multiple deployers much smaller than for individuals who have had a single deployment.

Chiarelli's remarks -- that there's no strong positive correlation between multiple, lengthy deployments and soldier suicides -- directly refute those made by Admiral Mullen in February:

Military leader Adm. Mike Mullen ties suicides to long deployments

FORT CAMPBELL -- The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen, told soldiers here Thursday it appears repeated long deployments in combat zones may be a factor in an increase in the number of suicides among soldiers.

Mullen told about 680 soldiers at Fort Campbell during a town hall style meeting that soldiers are getting too little time at home after spending as much as 15 months in combat.

"I can't believe that is not a huge factor," Mullen said.

Oddly enough, Chiarelli's suggestion also contradicts the findings of Army studies completed in both 2007 and 2008. In the 2007 report, the AP noted:

"In addition, there was a significant relationship between suicide attempts and number of days deployed" in Iraq, Afghanistan or nearby countries where troops are participating in the war effort, it said. The same pattern seemed to hold true for those who not only attempted, but succeeded in killing themselves.

There also "was limited evidence to support the view that multiple ... deployments are a risk factor for suicide behaviors," it said.

Similarly, the 2008 Army study tied more deployments to higher rates of PTSD -- a chief factor in soldier suicides. From USA Today:

From 15% to 20% of all soldiers fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan show signs of depression or post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), says the study of almost 2,300 soldiers finished last fall. That rate jumps to about 30% for soldiers who have been on three or four combat deployments.

So why is Gen. Chiarelli suddenly going against the grain, arguing that multiple deployments, in fact, cause "a certain resiliency to grow" in soldiers?  I have no idea.  But Gen. Chiarelli wasn't the only high-ranking Army official on the conference call attempting to downplay the role of several long deployments on the health of the force.  Dr. (Col.) Elspeth Ritchie was also on the phone, and she had this to say:

The caveat is often when you look at these cases there's a multiple -- multitude of factors. There's both a relationship problem and a legal or an occupational problem, maybe a substance-abuse problem. And sometimes it's hard to identify what the -- what was the actual precipitant.

The actual precipitant?  C'mon, guys.  We're exposing troops to the most violence soldiers have seen since Vietnam, in two simultaneous wars, with an Army that's too small. And we've lowered entrance standards to do it. So let's not kid ourselves.

But, since I don't want to dismiss Gen. Chiarelli's remarks simply because I find them implausible, I looked at the data on which he's basing his conclusion -- as provided by the Army. And in it, there's simply no evidence provided to suggest that repeatedly deploying for long periods of time causes "a certain resiliency" in soldiers. 

Essentially, Gen. Chiarelli appears to be saying that because more soldiers who committed suicide had completed less than one full tour than those who'd completed at least one full tour over the past four years, that this means number and lengths of tours aren't a major contributing factor in soldier suicides. He's saying -- and the numbers back this up -- that over half the suicides were committed by soldiers who'd never deployed or who were on their first deployment.

However, this is a questionable interpretation of the data at best. Because if we look at the data another way, we see this:

Completed at least one full tour prior to suicide: 201
On first tour at time of suicide: 101
Never deployed: 133

Distilled further, we get this:

Soldier had deployed to a combat zone: 302
Soldier had never deployed to a combat zone: 133

Clearly, proximity to combat has an effect on soldier suicides.  Well over two and a half times the number of suicides were committed by those who'd spent time in combat versus those who hadn't.  And there's certainly nothing in those numbers to suggest "a certain resiliency" after deploying more than once. 

As shown above, this has been corroborated in at least two previous Army studies, and it's thought to be true by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff -- as he articulated in February.

So, as I said, I'm not sure why Gen. Chiarelli and Col. Ritchie are intent on pushing this notion that the number and lengths of deployments aren't a major contributing cause of soldier suicides.  Because this now sends a mixed signal to both the troops and their families at a time when government organizations need to be working cohesively to prevent soldier suicides.

Ultimately, it's important that we get this right because it has to do with how we plan our operations and what our military views as an acceptable op-tempo.  If the Army -- as reflected in Gen. Chiarelli's remarks -- thinks more and longer deployments cut down on suicides, then that would necessitate an entirely different approach to the issue than if the Army saw multiple deployments as a significant contributing factor in soldier suicides.  There would be no need for longer dwell times, and no need for a larger Army. 

Gen. Chiarelli is a warrior and a patriot, and he's widely respected throughout the Army.  But it appears that he and Col. Ritchie are wrong on this one.  Based on the data we have, I think it's safe to plan around the idea that multiple, lengthy deployments are not good for the health of the force -- and that they're dangerous for our overall security.

More information and resources on PTSD.