DH
I don't think they are as rare as you think.
Well I can only go by the soldiers and ex-soldiers that I know (which is more than just a few) and 100% of us are not afflicted by any such problems, nor have I heard of any through friends of friends (which would constitute whole platoons of soldiers). That's quite a few soldiers and ex-soldiers with 0 cases of PTSD.
DH
I know there is substantial fear among soldiers to speak out regarding their emotional turmoil and tell the truth about their mental anguish: it labels them as weak, unfit, unstable and not suited to be soldier- thus severely diminishing their chances at promotion or securing their place within the profession.
Of course there is fear... we risk (or risked) our lives, but that anxiety is not about talking about our fear. The army I was in had no problems with admitting fear, its how one acted in the face of that fear that made or broke a soldier.
DH
Soldiers don't know who to turn to with their symptoms for fear of reprimand and challenge of their character:
Sure we do, in the field we turn to each other, we are brothers in arms after all! Later there is family, friends, even the military Chaplin is available if needed.
DH
But I think a citizenry must hold its soldiers accountable, no matter the difficulty in determining what happened and why. A democratic society not only has a right, but an obligation to demand that those who kill in its name be accountable for the mistakes they commit in the process. There must be oversight and evaluation that is not compromised by conflict of interests. The soldier is a citizen first and no warriors' code or soldier's solidarity should, as I see it, compromise that.
My only objections are
One... who is doing the Judging? There are scarce few people who I would agree have knowledge or common sense enough to truly understand and evaluate the combat actions of a soldier. Even the justified killing of enemy combatants is loathsome to the average citizen. Furthermore most have never had to make life and death decisions in a fraction of a second. I do not believe that any one who hasn't has the ability give a fair and unbiased judgment over an action of that sort.
Many soldiers who some would put on trial are only able to be tried because of the action they are being condemned for. In other words if they had not taken the "illegal" action they would have been killed.
We have a saying in the military and in law enforcement it has sprung up over the last 10 years or so... it goes
"I would rather be judged by 12 then carried by 6" this of course is a reflection of the times and how even actions taken to save life are harshly (and often unfairly) scrutinized.
For many of us the fear of an unjust trial by ignorant civilians is far more intense than anything we feel while in action.
Second... if we are talking about mistakes, they are going to happen, placing blame and demanding punishment is in no way helpful, it will not stop future mistakes from being made (their mistakes for crying out loud!), it just adds to the stress of the soldier.
That sort of stress causes soldiers to second guess their actions, indecision in combat costs lives.
Now if you are talking about malicious action and unprofessional behavior... then yes, by all means punishment is justified after a reasonable investigation exposes such behavior, but exposing the action is the hard part when dealing with a band of brothers isn't it?
Later.
That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.