Yes, absolutely. With any type of event that could have a negative impact on the effectiveness of a soldier's role when on a mission, I think you need to try to address the problem in order to avoid things getting worse. In terms of research, there is very little data to suggest that such interventions or strategies are effective, even on site. I believe we have to go further than that and assess the impact of this type of intervention, even though that is relatively difficult to do. Perhaps some resources should be set aside to that end.
In terms of what is called early or preventive intervention, reference is often made to debriefing, which can occur after what is called diffusing. That is probably what you are referring to. Diffusing involves giving an account of the events that occurred. Debriefing is intended to prevent problems from developing subsequently.
Research dealing specifically with the impact of debriefing on the prevention of PTSD clearly shows that it is not effective. It is possible not enough research has been done yet on this particular subject. In fact, there has been little research dealing with military personnel. However, a dozen or so studies have been conducted based on the normal practice and according to scientific methods. There are a number of literature reviews that deal with that. There really is an international consensus to the effect that universal early intervention—in other words, treatment of all the victims of a traumatic event, although we do not yet know of any cases involving soldiers—does not prevent the development of post-traumatic stress.