Yes, it is paradoxical. This is a common type of intervention, particularly in the workplace. It can involve soldiers, but it can also involve civilians—police officers, for example. I think it really flows out of a need to do something to help people who have been involved in potentially traumatic events.
Just to summarize my answer with respect to what you were asking earlier, I would that say although many people use it, according to many studies that have been conducted, it is not effective. You asked me what exactly we should be doing. Well, obviously, there is no simple answer to that question. From an ethical standpoint, the question is whether we should just let things go without any kind of intervention, and simply wait for problems to develop in some people, at which time we provide treatment or do whatever we can to help them.
In England, clinicians from various parts of the world got together and drafted a paper that sets out guidelines to be followed for interventions with people who have been exposed to trauma or have developed post-traumatic stress. They suggest not conducting universal debriefing—meaning, in every single case—but rather, treating only those who demonstrate a risk for developing problems in the short term, or in the two weeks following the event.
Having said that, it isn't always easy to use such a process for military personnel on a mission who have been exposed to that kind of event. I understand that particular context is complex. I simply want to mention that watchful waiting is what is suggested. This is a non-intrusive screening procedure used to repeatedly and regularly assess people's state of mind and provide more forceful or intensive treatment through cognitive behaviour therapy. That approach is based on research conducted over the last five or ten years with victims of sexual assault or road accidents who subsequently developed what is called acute stress response.
Acute stress response is a temporary diagnosis that can be made during the first month following a traumatic event. This diagnosis is made when people have developed a series of symptoms that closely resemble those of post-traumatic stress, the difference being that it occurs in the four weeks following the event.
So, it would be a good idea to implement a process for screening and treating only those who have the potential to develop post-traumatic stress. Indeed, they are at greater risk of developing post-traumatic stress because they already have symptoms that are closely related to PTSD. However, acute stress response is not a perfect predictor. Indeed, only 60% of people who meet the criteria for acute stress response actually develop post-traumatic stress subsequently. It is also important to continue to screen people who are not experiencing post-traumatic stress.