SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : GOPwinger Lies/Distortions/Omissions/Perversions of Truth -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Patricia Trinchero who wrote (9025)4/8/2004 9:55:36 PM
From: Karen Lawrence  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 173976
 
Pat:

Over at veteransforcommonsense.org, the news is that 70% of the troops are suffering from low morale. I think it's shocking and abominable that your friend's daughter must return to Iraq again, now. You wrote earlier that her husband had been shot at. Things are worse in Iraq since the accidental or on-purpose mosque bombing. It's only April 8, but 32 troops have been killed already, an average of four a day. Many times that number have been wounded seriously and exposed to the Bush depleted uranium wmds that have caused birth defects in the children of returning veterans. I think we both know that if Bush is re-elected, the draft will be reinstated and no young person who isn't rich or connected will be spared from this carnage.



To: Patricia Trinchero who wrote (9025)4/8/2004 9:58:49 PM
From: geode00  Respond to of 173976
 
'We have lots more violence that we incited, pack up and get back in there!' --- gee.

I hope you friends stay safe.



To: Patricia Trinchero who wrote (9025)4/8/2004 9:58:55 PM
From: Karen Lawrence  Respond to of 173976
 
Over ten percent of the troops have been evacuated for medical reasons. Many of the wounded, suffering from post traumatic stress and riddled with parasites have been forced to return to Iraq because of lack of troops.

Medical evacuations in Iraq war hit 18,000
Mark Benjamin
Washington Times
washtimes.com
Posted 3/31/2004 8:49:00 PM

This is tragic news. On a day when 10 Americans were killed in Iraq (five civilians and five soldiers), the news that there are as many as 18,000 casualties is remarkable. However, the accuracy of the count, even though it was provided by the military, remains in doubt. Does this overcount casualties because of multiple flights? Or, does this undercount veterans because it doesn't list casualties treated in Iraq that don't get medically evacuated to Europe and the U.S.? Someone ought to make the military provide accurte and easily understood casualty counts.

Medical evacuations in Iraq war hit 18,000

WASHINGTON, March 31 (United Press International) -- In the first year of war in Iraq, the military has made 18,004 medical evacuations during Operation Iraqi Freedom, the Pentagon's top health official told Congress Tuesday.

The new data, through March 13, is nearly two-thirds higher than the 11,200 evacuations through Feb. 5 cited just last month to Congress by the same official, William Winkenwerder Jr., assistant secretary of defense for health affairs.

In both cases, Winkenwerder described the evacuations as "total evacuations out of theater," and he said both times that the majority of evacuations represented routine medical treatment and not life-threatening injuries.

"As of March 13, 2004, data from the Transportation Command shows 18,004 total evacuations out of theater," Winkenwerder said Tuesday.

"As of February 5, 2004, data from the Transportation Command shows 11,200 total evacuations out of theater," he told a separate House panel Feb. 25.

A spokesman for Winkenwerder, James Turner, said the latest figure represents multiple evacuations for single patients -- including moving some soldiers back into theater. He said the 18,004 evacuations was for 11,700 patients.

Turner did not return e-mails or phone calls Tuesday and Wednesday asking for elaboration.

Winkenwerder appeared Tuesday before a House Government Reform panel with four Army Reserve and National Guard soldiers. Those soldiers offered a litany of complaints about poor health care for reserve and guard troops -- problems they said have been widespread during the war on terror, particularly on return to the United States.

Soldiers described being deployed to war with serious medical conditions and then getting poor and erratic health care upon return -- including months-long waits for doctors, surgeries or treatments. United Press International first reported that problem last October.

Two soldiers said better access to mental health services might have prevented two suicide attempts at two separate bases, and asserted that soldiers are sometimes prescribed powerful drugs by military health professionals in place of medical care. The soldiers also described widespread concern about being put out of the military without fair compensation for wounds and illnesses they received during service.

"Is it a question of incompetent medical care or a question of a well-organized government system that achieves just what it is supposed to achieve?" Retired Army Reserve First Sgt. Gerry Mosley, who served in Iraq, asked the panel.

"Use people, strip them of all human dignity, disrespect them, wear them down, and be pleased when soldiers no longer have the physical and mental capacities to continue to fight to have the same rights and respect as those American citizens for whom we have fought to preserve those entitlements."

Mosley said that after returning from Iraq last summer, he has had to drive 195 miles each way at his own expense to see a specialist. He said the Army put him out of service without compensating him for a neck injury or vertigo apparently triggered from mortar explosions. He can no longer work his civilian job. Since being put out of the Army, he has been diagnosed with Parkinson's Disease.

The wives of two soldiers also testified. Laura Ramsey, wife of Florida Army National Guard Spc. John A. Ramsey, said through tears that she did not want her husband to serve in the guard anymore, after fighting for nine months to get surgery on his shoulders that were injured in Iraq. "Not after the nine months of hell that we have been through," Ramsey said.

Pentagon health officials described a series of steps they are taking to better screen soldiers for health problems before and after deploying for combat. They also have taken steps to ease the strain at major bases -- including a new policy to send some soldiers back home for treatment near their families after 25 days if they are unfit for duty after showing up for service.

While they wait, the Pentagon has set new standards to help ensure that living conditions are appropriate for sick, injured or ill troops.

Pentagon health officials mostly have emphasized swift and professional care for the acutely wounded by combat in Iraq.

"During Operation Iraqi Freedom, we used far-forward surgical and medical teams and technologies to care for casualties within minutes of injury," Winkenwerder told Congress last month. "Based on the current analysis, 98 percent of those wounded who, in fact, reached medical treatment survived their injuries."

But Pentagon data and interviews with soldiers at six bases in the United States and Europe show combat wounds represent a minority of casualties during wartime. The Pentagon "Operation Iraqi Freedom U.S. Casualty Update" on Tuesday listed a total of 2,998 soldiers wounded in action, in comparison to the 18,004 medical evacuations described by Winkenwerder.

The Pentagon defines a casualty as "any person who is lost to the organization by having been declared dead, duty status-whereabouts unknown, missing, ill, or injured."

More mundane wartime injures seem more prevalent: back and neck injuries, torn knees and elbows, heart and lung problems and mental problems like post-traumatic stress disorder that may not be diagnosed for months after returning from combat.

Soldiers say acute care for the wounded at Landstuhl Regional Medical Center in Germany and at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, D.C., is excellent. But ill and injured troops -- particularly National Guard and Army Reserve soldiers -- sprinkled across the United States describe widespread concern for medical care and benefits described by the panel Tuesday. Some are in "medical hold" at U.S. bases while they wait for treatment.

"I have spoken probably with hundreds of soldiers since I was placed in med hold," Spc. Timothi M. McMichael told the panel Tuesday. He is on medical hold at Fort Knox, Ky. "I can only say that the uniform consensus is one of frustration, disappointment and anger. I have had soldiers with 15, 20, even 25 years in the military tell me they are disgusted," McMichael said. "The Army cannot afford to lose the number of senior non-commissioned officers it is losing every day."

In addition to the new policies, Winkenwerder said the Pentagon is racing to do better for these troops, as well as those wounded in combat. "I believe we are doing better. I really do," he told Congress Tuesday. "We understand. We appreciate that there are some issues that need to be addressed. We are aggressively addressing them."





Featured Articles

750 War Veterans Urge Bush to Support Troops

Posted - 11/11/2003 7:07:00 AM


Veterans and Supporters: Register to Vote !

Posted - 8/26/2003


Bush: Nothing But Lip Service for Our Soldiers
Army Times Editorial
Posted - 6/27/2003 11:01:36 AM


"Facts, Myths and Propaganda In the Debate Over Depleted Uranium Weapons"
Dan Fahey
Posted - 3/15/2003 2:25:48 PM


In letter to Bush, war veterans "strongly question" Iraq invasion, and seek a meeting
Veterans for Common Sense
Posted - 3/11/2003 9:23:38 PM



Media

Nov 11 Working Assets (RealMedia Streaming Audio)

Nov 11 WBUR Boston

Oct 24 CSPAN briefing (RealMedia Streaming Audio)

Veterans Teach-In (RealMedia Streaming Audio)


News Transcript

January 15, 2003 News Conference


Links

Alternet

Antiwar.com

Anthrax Vaccine

Buzzflash

Commondreams.org

Constitution Society

Department of Veterans Affairs

Education for Peace in Iraq Center

Gulf War locator

Intervention Magazine

National Gulf War Resource Center, Inc.

No War Signs

Nuclear Policy Research Institute

Soldiers for the Truth

TomPaine.com

UN Observer

Veterans Against the Iraq War

Veterans for Peace

Vietnam Veterans Against the War

Vietnam Veterans of America Foundation

WorldNet Daily


War Documents

Gulf War Disability Statistics (PDF)

Self-Help Guide

Uncounted Casualties: America's Ailing Gulf War Veterans (PDF)

Depleted Uranium Case Narrative (PDF)







Home | Join | News Articles | Opinions & Stories | Support The



To: Patricia Trinchero who wrote (9025)4/8/2004 10:39:44 PM
From: Karen Lawrence  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 173976
 
Pat. I just found this article re: your friend's daughter's devastating and horrid situation. BTW, our Rep Peter DeFazio wrote a bill that would give these combatants extra money. THe rightwing will, of course, vote it down as they don't care about these brave men and women.

Slyly Reviving the Draft

04/08/2004 @ 6:11pm [permalink]
E-mail this Post
"Even in Vietnam, as difficult as it was there, you knew from the time you hit the ground to the time you returned it was one year -- whereas with this [Iraq war] it's really up in the air." -- an American soldier discussing Pentagon decisions that keep soldiers in the field against their will even after they've served their tours of duty.

* * *

Donald Rumsfeld has said that US troops scheduled to leave Iraq in the next few weeks might instead be forbidden to leave. So soldiers who have no doubt been counting down the days to when they can go home are now in limbo. The Army, meanwhile, has prepared new so-called "stop-loss" orders that forbid thousands from leaving the service even after they've put in their agreed time.

Britain's The Guardian newspaper also reports that the Pentagon, desperate for warm bodies, "is sending unfit soldiers back to Iraq long before they are ready to serve again." The Guardian cites many examples.

This amounts to an unannounced military draft: You have men who haven't volunteered to serve and who don't want to serve being ordered to a war zone. That's a draft. In some ways, it's even a less fair draft than if Rumsfeld came for, say, me: Why should men who have already served voluntarily in highly dangerous duty be singled out as the only victims for conscription? (Especially when, to hear The Guardian tell it, some of them are even wounded!)

Now, many of these soldiers would re-enlist if asked and if offered real incentives. But see, we've frittered away all of the public's money on politically-connected war-profiteering, and on repulsive Republican gluttony in feeding our wealthiest.

So, not only is the Bush Administration unwilling to pony up for attractive re-enlistment bonuses -- so much easier just to enslave people than to pay them! -- it's also left us running short on other promises to men in uniform. For example, The Associated Press reports from Oregon, "National Guardsmen returning from duty in Iraq are finding that the funds promised them for tuition reimbursement are in short supply. The federal program that is supposed to defray up to 75 percent of their college expenses is short of funds ..."

* * *

One Staff Sergeant, discussing the injustice of a stop-loss order, laid it out this way to The Washington Post, "An enlistment contract has two parties, yet only the government is allowed to violate the contract; I am not."

Funny.

I wonder why he didn't just "work it out with the military" to leave.

He must have missed "Meet the Press" in February, when George W. Bush discussed his own Vietnam-era days serving, or not, with the National Guard:

Russert: You did -- were allowed to leave eight months before your term expired. Was there a reason?

President Bush: Right. Well, I was going to Harvard Business School and worked it out with the military.

* * *

Progressive Democrat Peter DeFazio has introduced a bill in the House that would give an extra $500 a month to soldiers who are forced to stay in uniform by "stop-loss."

"The federal government is failing to honor the contracts it has signed with tens of thousands of men and women serving in the U.S. military," says DeFazio. "This amounts to an involuntary draft. It hurts troop morale. And it borders on breach of contract. ... While there may be military rationale, I believe that the federal government should compensate our men and women in uniform when the Pentagon ignores the terms of a contract it signs."

A humble prediction: This bill, introduced and supported by progressives, will be smacked aside by Washington Republicans on grounds that you should never spend a dollar on a working stiff when you can spend it instead on Halliburton. (After all, we've had this argument once before).

thenation.com