The Bush Administration has been trying to keep the number who are wounded, especially the seriously wounded secret from the American people. The US media is helping, too. You won't see TV stories on how the hundreds of GI's are trying to use new artificial limbs or wheelchairs. It is not conducive to selling products. ************** America's hidden battlefield toll New figures reveal the true number of GIs wounded in Iraq Jason Burke in London and Paul Harris in New York Sunday September 14, 2003 The Observer The true scale of American casualties in Iraq is revealed today by new figures obtained by The Observer, which show that more than 6,000 American servicemen have been evacuated for medical reasons since the beginning of the war, including more than 1,500 American soldiers who have been wounded, many seriously. The figures will shock many Americans, who believe that casualties in the war in Iraq have been relatively light. Recent polls show that support for President George Bush and his administration's policy in Iraq has been slipping. The number of casualties will also increase pressure on Bush to share the burden of occupying Iraq with more nations. Attempts to broker an international alliance to pour more men and money into Iraq foundered yesterday when Colin Powell, the US Secretary of State, brusquely rejected a French proposal as 'totally unrealistic'. Three US soldiers were killed last week, bringing the number of combat dead since hostilities in Iraq were declared officially over on 1 May to 68. A similar number have died in accidents. It is military police policy to announce that a soldier has been wounded only if they were involved in an incident that involved a death. Critics of the policy say it hides the true extent of the casualties. The new figures reveal that 1,178 American soldiers have been wounded in combat operations since the war began on 20 March. It is believed many of the American casualties evacuated from Iraq are seriously injured. Modern body armour, worn by almost all American troops, means wounds that would normally kill a man are avoided. However vulnerable arms and legs are affected badly. This has boosted the proportion of maimed among the injured. There are also concerns that many men serving in Iraq will suffer psychological trauma. Experts at the National Army Museum in London said studies of soldiers in the First and Second World Wars showed that it was prolonged exposure to combat environments that was most damaging. Some American units, such as the Fourth Infantry Division, have been involved in frontline operations for more than six months. Andrew Robertshaw, an expert at the museum, said wars also claimed casualties after they were over. 'Soldiers were dying from injuries sustained during World War I well into the 1920s,' he said. British soldiers are rotated more frequently than their American counterparts. The Ministry of Defence has recently consulted the National Army Museum about psychological disorders suffered by combatants in previous wars in a bid to avoid problems. The wounded return to the USA with little publicity. Giant C-17 transport jets on medical evacuation missions land at Andrews Air Force Base, near Washington, every night. Battlefield casualties are first treated at Army field hospitals in Iraq then sent to Landstuhl Regional Medical Centre in Germany, where they are stabilised. Andrews is the first stop back home. As the planes taxi to a halt, gangplanks are lowered and the wounded are carried or walk out. A fleet of ambulances and buses meet the C-17s most nights to take off the most seriously wounded. Those requiring urgent operations and amputations are ferried to America's two best military hospitals, the Walter Reed Army Medical Centre, near Washington, and the National Naval Medical Centre, Bethesda. The hospitals are busy. Sometimes all 40 of Walter Reed's intensive care beds are full. Dealing with the aftermath of amputations and blast injuries is common. Mines, home-made bombs and rocket-propelled grenades are the weapons of choice of the Iraqi resistance fighters. They cause the sort of wounds that will cost a soldier a limb. The less badly wounded stay overnight at the air base, where an indoor tennis club and a community centre have been turned into a medical staging facility. Many have little but the ragged uniforms on their backs. A local volunteer group, called America's Heroes of Freedom, has set up on the base to provide them with fresh clothes, food packages and toiletries. 'This is our way of saying, "We have not forgotten you,"' said group founder Susan Brewer. url
I hope the media jumps on yet another major omission by our government about what is really going on in Iraq. Thousands of US troops evacuated from Iraq for unexplained medical reasons By James Conachy 9 September 2003 Citing the US military Central Command as its source, the Washington Post reported on September 2 that “more than 6,000 service members” had been medically evacuated from Iraq since the launch of the war. At the time, the number of combat wounded stood at 1,124. A further 301 personnel had been injured in non-combat incidents such as vehicle accidents. The figure of “more than 6,000” supplied to the Post therefore implies that over 4,500 US troops have required evacuation from Iraq for medical reasons other than combat or non-combat injuries. The Washington Post article did not include any further information on what is a staggering admission by the military. At no point in the last six months have the American people been told that for every soldier who has been killed in Iraq, at least another 15 have fallen so ill that they had to be flown back to the United States. The Post described the unexplained evacuations simply as the “thousands who became physically or mentally ill”. washingtonpost.com The obvious questions that must be answered are: what were they diagnosed with; what units are they from; what duties were they were performing; what long-term effects have they suffered; and what treatment are they receiving? While large numbers of the evacuations may well be for routine medical reasons, such a detailed breakdown is essential. Apart from providing an insight into the true impact of the war on the American troops, it may provide evidence that supports the concerns among military personnel and their families that service in Iraq is exposing them to long-term and potentially fatal medical problems. In particular, there are fears that soldiers have already died or are falling ill due to their exposure to depleted uranium (DU) or the anthrax vaccine they have been compelled to take. On July 31, the Army Surgeon General announced an investigation into the deaths of two soldiers, Michael Tosta and Josh Neusche, and the hospitalisation of another 100, diagnosed with severe pneumonia. It has been established that inhaling large concentrations of DU-contaminated particles damages the lungs and kidneys and can cause respiratory illness. There are also recorded medical suspicions that the US military’s anthrax vaccine can trigger pneumonia. In August 2002, three military doctors noted in the Cardiopulmonary and Critical Care Journal that a case of pneumonia in a healthy 39-year-old soldier “may be due to the anthrax vaccine”. The US Department of Defense has only made public one progress report on the pneumonia investigation. On August 22 it announced that it was “making significant progress” in eliminating SARS and vaccines as a possible cause. It revealed that 10 alleged pneumonia cases showed a higher than normal number of the white blood cell eosinophils. It also reported that none of the 19 most severe cases belonged to the same units, that 13 had fallen ill in Iraq and that the remaining six fell ill in Kuwait, Qatar, Uzbekistan, and Djibouti. The Office of the Armed Forces Medical Examiner was reportedly investigating the “specific cause or causes of death” of Tosta and Neusche. Since July 31, however, another soldier, Zeferino Colunga, has died allegedly from pneumonia while Sergeant Richard Eaton has died from a pulmonary edema or fluid in the lungs. Two other soldiers have been found dead in their beds for as yet unexplained reasons. Such is the distrust of the military that the families of both Josh Neusche and Colunga have demanded access to their loved ones’ medical records, personal effects and blood and tissue samples, so that independent medical opinions can be sought on the cause of death. The families sent letters on August 12 to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld stating: “We as a family are concerned that we are not being told the truth.” Stephanie Tosta, the 22-year-old widow of Michael Tosta, has publicly speculated the military is lying about the cause of her husband’s death. She told United Press International last month: “More and more I think it was the [anthrax] shots. I think they [the Army] might be lying about this stuff. I really feel like it. Nobody can tell me anything. If it is the shots, then of course they are lying. We just want to know what happened and we have a right to know. But the Army is acting like they are trying to hide something, and that just makes it harder.” The family of Rachael Lacy, a young soldier who died in Kuwait on April 4 from a “pneumonia-like illness” but whose death is not included in the military investigation, is also alleging her death was due to the anthrax vaccine. Connecticut congressman Chris Shays, who chaired hearings last year on the possible side-effects of the anthrax vaccination program, is reportedly monitoring the investigation into the death of Sergeant Richard Eaton. The website of “Bring Them Home Now”—an organisation of military families demanding the immediate withdrawal of US forces from the Middle East—bluntly warns soldiers that the only guaranteed way to limit the medical consequences from exposure to DU is to “get out of Iraq or Afghanistan”. The groups’ statement of purpose declares: “Not one more troop killed in action. Not one more troop wounded in action. Not one more troop psychologically damaged by the act of terrifying, humiliating, injuring or killing innocent people. Not one more troop spending one more day inhaling depleted uranium. Not one more troop separated from spouse and children. This is the only way to truly support these troops, and the families who are just as much part of the military as they are.” The National Gulf War Resource Center (NGWRC), an advocacy organisation for veterans of the first 1991 US war on Iraq, is assisting the military families who believe they are being lied to. Among the suspected causes of a range of illnesses commonly referred to as “Gulf War syndrome” are DU exposure and complications triggered by vaccinations. By 1999, as many as 110,000 Gulf War veterans had reported health problems that they believe are due to their service in Iraq. The sensitivity of the military hierarchy to the suspicions among rank-and-file troops, families and veterans is demonstrated by the reassurances on the official Army medical website that neither DU nor the anthrax vaccine pose a health risk. The US government also rejects any link between “Gulf War syndrome”, DU and vaccines. In 1998 however, the US military did finally admit that at least 436,000 American troops entered into areas during the first Gulf War that were contaminated to some extent by DU radioactive dust.
I stubbed my toe the other day. Do I get a Purple Heart??? The ratio of wounded to dead is typically anywhere from 3:1 to 10:1; meaning that for every dead soldier there are typically anywhere from three to 10 wounded soldiers. Now, as far as 'wounded' goes, that can mean anything from a serious gunshot wound, to serious shrapnel damage, to a case of "I scratched my pinkie". In reality, most 'wounds' are not of a serious nature, and will heal completely with varying amounts of time; more broken fingers than gunshot wounds. Incidentally, I fail to see why a number of several thousand wounded would make the war not worth it. By ANY account, the casualties - both dead and wounded - have been extremely low, relatively speaking. What were the wounded numbers in WWII? Korea? Vietnam? We are no where even close to those numbers. Hell, we had maybe a half million wounded in Vietnam. And you guys are already ready to surrender and pack it all up? The only problem I see here is that you guys are a bunch of sissies who are unwilling to take any casualties, no matter the reason. Too many Americans have become accustomed to the mythical "No-casualty war". You have forgotten that in war, casualties are inevitable. And usually, lots of casualties. This is what happens when you take glynch seriously.
Agreed. It is suprising you hear comments like 'this makes me laugh,' but I guess its not suprising when you have one source (glynch) posting one article after another with NO facts and as much conjecture as a UFO newsrag. War = casualties. Get used to it. I find it ironic that the same people who content Americans are worth no more than anyone else all of the sudden start to complain about a few thousand American casualties (and I am by no means conceeding this exaggerated number) when MILLIONS of Iraqis have been taken from under the dictatorial boot of Saddam Hussein. Mix and match, make contradictory answers. Whatever.
Hayes, I guess I should occasionally reply in kind. You always push for war and provide NO FACTS. WMD or not, no biggie let's have war. Switch seemlessly from an international communist boogie man to an international Muslim boogie man. Keep the Koreans and Chinese, in reserve in case you need another boogie man to justify your militarism. A lot of people killed. No biggie. To quote one of your fellow militarists, Stalin, "If you want to make an omelette, you have to crack some eggs. Tens of thousands killed in Iraq, no biggie; you predict Sadam would kill more. More than 5 million killed in our South East Asia junket/ No biggie. (2.5 mill Viwetnamese, 2.5 Cambodians and others) You predict Ho or at least communism would have killed more. Besides Hitler and Stalin killed more. Defeat in Vietnam and no dire consequences for the US? Oh that was because we fought a long bloody war. Now the Vietnamese are our friends though they defeated us. Well making omelettes makes good friends. Win or lose war is good.
Its a shame you don't feel more sympathy for your wounded military brothers and sisters, I guess you got it lucky not having to serve a tour. Be sure and keep your artillery shed filled to the brim---I bet your glad the military will always require non-com ammo stockers, you'll always have a job.
No, I don't think we're a bunch of sissies, but I do think the reason matters a great deal to most of us. Afghanistan is a good illustration. I'm prepared to spend whatever it takes to make sure the Taliban don't come back and Al-Qaeda has no base. I've been against the Iraq War more or less since the beginning because while I believed some of the spin on the weapons, I didn't think it was in our best interest to do what we've done and I certainly never trusted this Admin to come up with anything other than the most rosy scenarios that fit their ideological predispositions. Afghanistan: Good Reason/casualties accepted. Iraq: Bad Reasons/casualties unnecessary. To use a wildfire analogy, if there's a fire that's close to a town, we'll take some calculated risks and put lots of resources in the area. If we have a fire in a wilderness 20 miles from the nearest home, we're not going to take many risks and we're not going to pull in the high money options like helicopters and slurry bombers even though there is always the possibility that a 70 mph sustained wind could whip up and drive the fire 20 miles to town. This administration ignored the fires next to town and told us the fire that's twenty miles away was really just down the block. Again, for most of us the question is not about casualties in wartime but casualties in this war. We recognize that wars cost lives. That's why one should never enter into them with false assumptions and trumped up reasons.
"Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, ...would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, there was no viable ‘exit strategy’ we could see, violating another of our principles. Going in and occupying Iraq, ...would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome." -- George Herbert Herbert Bush, in his 1998 book A World Transformed
