Hmm... damn liberal media dropping the ball. I wish Fox News would cover this in a "fair and balanced" way. Press Underreports Wounded in Iraq http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ep/20031023/en_bpiep/pressunderreportswoundediniraq NEW YORK -- When newspapers reported this week on poor medical and living conditions for Americans injured in Iraq (news - web sites), it might have come as a shock for some readers. For months, the press has barely mentioned non-fatal casualties or the severity of their wounds. E&P reported in July that while deaths in combat are often tallied by newspapers, the many non-combat troop deaths in Iraq are virtually ignored. It turns out that newspaper readers have also been shortchanged in getting a sense of the number of troops injured, in and out of battle. "There could be some inattention to [the number of injured troops]," said Philip Bennett, Washington Post assistant managing editor of the foreign desk. "And obviously if there is, it should be corrected. Soldiers getting wounded is part of the reality of conflict on the ground. I think if you were to find or discover that those figures are being overlooked, that would be something we'd want to correct." Few newspapers routinely report injuries in Iraq, beyond references to specific incidents. Since the war began in March, 1,927 soldiers have been wounded in Iraq, many quite severely. (The tally is current as of Oct. 20.) Of this number, 1,590 were wounded in hostile action, and 337 from other causes. About 20% of the injured in Iraq have suffered severe brain injuries, and as many as 70% "had the potential for resulting in brain injury," according to an Oct. 16 article in The Boston Globe. Current injury statistics were easily obtained by E&P through U.S. Central Command and the Pentagon (news - web sites), so getting the numbers is no longer a problem. According to Lawrence F. Kaplan, author of an article on injured troops in the Oct. 13 issue of The New Republic, this information has only recently been readily accessible. "Pentagon officials have rebuked public affairs officers who release casualty figures, and, until recently, U.S. Central Command did not regularly publicize the injured tally either," Kaplan wrote. The difference between "hostile" and other injuries, according to Army spokesman Maj. Steven Stover at the Pentagon, is that "one is gonna get you a Purple Heart, and one's not. One's for wounds inflicted by the enemy. It could be any type of injury inflicted by someone who intends you harm." A United Press International investigation, published Oct. 20, revealed that many wounded veterans from Iraq, under care at places such as the Fort Stewart military base in Georgia, must wait "weeks and months for proper medical help" and are being kept in living conditions that are "unacceptable for sick and injured soldiers." One officer was quoted as saying, "They're being treated like dogs." The Army has said it is attempting to remedy the situation. In The New Republic, Kaplan reported on the state of many injured soldiers at Walter Reed Army Medical Center. According to Kaplan, modern medicine and rapid response techniques allow many wounded soldiers to survive injuries that would have killed them in previous wars. Many of these wounded soldiers are left with debilitating injury or loss of limb. Newspapers that only track hostile combat deaths fail to capture the human toll of thousands of troops left injured and crippled, he wrote. "The near-invisibility of the wounded has several sources," Kaplan wrote. "The media has always treated combat deaths as the most reliable measure of battlefield progress, while for its part the administration has been reluctant to divulge the full number of wounded." Even now, when the injury information is easily available, many newspapers neglect to report or keep a tally, as an informal survey of some top papers has shown. This comes on the heels of reports Wednesday that attacks on American troops in Iraq had increased in recent weeks from an average of 15 to 20 attacks per day to about 20 to 25 attacks a day, with a peak at about 35 attacks in one day, according to the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez. According to an Oct. 3 report by UPI, nearly 4,000 soldiers had been medically evacuated from Iraq for non-combat reasons. As for the tally of total deaths in Iraq, most of the media continues to only cite those killed in hostile action. On Oct. 20, for example, The New York Times reported: "Since President Bush (news - web sites) declared an end to major hostilities in Iraq on May 1, 106 American soldiers have been killed." But this number represents only those killed in combat by hostile fire. A total of 200 American troops have been killed in this time period from all causes, such as vehicle accidents, drowning, and suicides, a figure that is rarely mentioned in the press.
This is disturbing considering that some soldiers find the situation so desperate they commit suicide. The premise of this article really does debunk the notion of the war being spun by the elite liberal media. I also hate to say this but the medical treatment that they describe in the article almost sounds like something out of Vietnam. Not to say this is as bad as that but the parallel is there. I find it ironic this is here because I was listening to 740 am last night and on their news update they brought up an item about a soldier from Houston who recently died of what they described as "non-combat causes". It really made me curious as to the cause. But after reading this I don't think I want to know. This is an important article imo and could change some attitudes about the war. It now makes me sick Bush feels the conflict is not getting the justice it deserves from the media. Granted good things are happening in Iraq but the cost is becoming greater and greater.
Two things: 1) This should not be all that surprising to anyone who has ever studied war and combat. In modern wars there are typically about 8 to 10 wounded for every death, and that ratio is growing because of new technologies like Interceptor Body Armor. Some of these injuries are serious, some are minor; with most troops wearing IBA thier wounds are on the arms, hands, legs, feet - non-life threatening. The military today generally takes you out of action if you've gotten any wound greater than a stubbed toe. (They are worried about lawsuits and complaints by families of mistreatment). Most of these wounded are not seriously wounded at all; most of them are up and about, walking, talking, functioning normally. Not all of them, by any means, but they all count in the "wounded" column. 2) I have seen the reports about the inadequate care and housing that many wounded troops are getting, and that infuriates me. There is no excuse for that, and I hope that the Army gets drilled for it, because that is what will change it. I've also seen that the troops most likely to get stiffed are Reserve and National Guard troops; the Active Army has always been biased against these guys, and that bias is showing now. I for one don't give a rat's ass where these guys came from - they are serving on active duty in Iraq, and deserve the same treatment that active duty soldiers are getting (which is usually pretty good). That makes my blood boil. I would also caution anyone to try to keep perspective on the casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan. The combined total death count over two years of combat is still less than what we suffered on a weekly basis in Vietnam, Korea, or WWII. Yes, the losses are tragic, but they are relatively light, in fact lighter than any comparable conflict in human history. Casualties are inevitable in warfare (Kosovo was a fluke, and it seems to have spoiled some people), and these casualties - wounded included - are extremely low by any standard of comparison. Don't freak out about it.
Oh, and to comment on suicides - they are generally more common in the military than in the general populace, even in peacetime. When I was in basic alone I witnessed no less than three attempted suicides within a 10-week period, in a peacetime atmosphere, in one small training company alone. They are generally fairly common in the military, and the fact that they aren't all that common among troops serving in Iraq ought to tell you something. It isn't a whole lot more stressful or dangerous than serving stateside in peacetime.
rimrocker: You have no idea how stressful being in the military stateside during peacetime is, do you? I doubt it. Let's just say that it is extremely stressful, and there is a reason that there are so many suicides. And as far as being dangerous, even peacetime training is extremely dangerous. The military routinely loses people in training accidents (usually not reported in the media, only the instances where a dozen or so people die get reported). I have been fortunate enough to not be present when anyone's died yet, but I have seen at least a dozen of people taken away, "wounded", in simple training exercises. Live fire exercises are especially tricky things. I've been told by someone back from Iraq that it's probably about as dangerous as living in LA. Sounds alot worse than it is.
Perhaps you should have amended your post to read "living in South Central LA" or "living in Compton".
I take it we're to assume that L.A. and the armed forces have similar suicide/attempted suicide rates?
Using 1999, the last year there were no deaths from hostiles or terror attacks, we find 145 suicides and 436 deaths by accident, This works out to 9.5 suicides per 100,000 and 28.7 accidental deaths per 100,000. In Iraq we have about 130,000 military personnel and so far, 135 non-combat deaths (I don't know the breakdown between suicides and accidents) for a rate of about 100 per 100,000. Perhaps it is a bit more stressful over there than stateside, no? Certainly more deadly. And don't patronize me about deaths and injuries. I've seen more than enough of both in my job.
Well, I've known that the media isn't gonna report non fatal caualties, no big surprise. I'm not surprised at the suicide thing, but I guess I just never think about it, so it does startle me a little. Now, the living conditions, that is a serious problem. I think I'll fire off an email to my reps in the govt to see what can be done about that, I hope others will do the same.
I happen to work at a newspaper in one of the larger coastal cites just outside of Houston, and as far as media coverage of injuries and suicides go, they aren't necessarily under-reported, but generally simply not reported. Every Saturday it is part of my job to visit the Medical Examiner's Office (morgue) in the county and see if they've got anything we need to know about. They usually have a few suicides a month, and this is only on Saturdays. The number of suicides in the Houston area (and likely nationwide) absolutely dwarfs the numbers of violent crimes and murders, and I'm sure things are no different in the military, if not worse, for obvious reasons. Suicides, however, are not reported on as a rule unless the person is famous. Major injuries, too, just aren't all that newsworthy. We don't cover things like car accidents unless someone is killed or traffic is muddled up significantly for a long stretch. Why? Well, because that type of thing happens every day. It's not newsworthy. Let's think about this in terms of warfare, now. Obviously, a Hummer wreck is going to be way down the list of stuff that's newsworthy in that kind of situation. And wounding is going to happen in a situation where people with guns and munitions are running around all over the country. Does that mean those woundings and car crashes aren't serious? No. But the paper (tv news is worthless and has even LESS space) only has so much room to stick their war coverage, and 12 soldiers getting wounded in Afghanistan isn't going to rate much space, as in the scope of warfare, that's pretty damn lucky if they only got wounded. I agree that U.S. military dominance has spoiled people into expecting that few people are hurt in war, but the fact remains that most of this stuff simply isn't newsworthy. Suicides are never reported unless the victim is famous out of respect for his/her family and because, frankly, it just isn't news. Hope that adds to the discussion somewhat. Kinda interesting, I think.
I afraid that what it adds is that someone named "Hippieloser" works for a newspaper, further propagating the myth of the liberal media. j/k
Are you comparing your time stateside to your time overseas fighting in a war or is this second hand information?
Ironically, I saw a report on the suicides this morning before leaving for work. Some of the suicides, believe or not, are from people intentionally trying to hurt themselves, not kill themselves, so they can go home.
Ha, well, I'm an economic liberal but socially moderate. I'd say the majority of the reporters at my paper lean liberally, mainly because we're on the streets every day talking to people about how they got to be where they are. Of course, we don't choose what goes into the paper. We merely perform the function of writing the stories we're told must be reported. Our professional obligation is to merely list facts without analysis of our own, and that's how we do it if we don't want to get fired. The actual content of newspapers (and all media) is determined by the publishers and owners of the paper or whatever. They're, of course, pretty damn rich and generally don't lean anywhere close to liberal. They call the shots, and if they don't like what they see from a certain person in the organization, they're gone. I don't understand how some people can think that ultraliberal editors or reporters are simply left to thier own devices to further some kind of agenda. That's not how things work in a capitalist society. No stories are written that will offend the bosses or the many advertisers papers need to run. I do like those bumper stickers that say "Only a fool would believe the bias liberal media," though. That should read BIASED liberal media, dipsh!ts. At least you're true to your word of not reading, I guess. Sorry, this had nothing to do with poor living conditions in Iraq for the soldiers. Fun rant, though.
