I guess this is a POL thread

[Vinatieri for Prez]

After reading this article, I am angry. I am angry at Bush, the Administration, Congress, the military. I'm totally pissed.

After all the soldiers have sacrificed, this is how the government treats them.

It's an article about Walter Reed hospital and the terrible conditions there. You should read it so that it never happens again.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/17/AR2007021701172.html

After the hundreds of billions spent and wasted (just think of the war contracts and handing out cash in Iraq for starters), more couldn't have been spared here?

[st.cronin]

Who was that guy in here who was claiming that the VA was the model for universal health care in this country?

[JPhillips]

While I find the conditions deplorable, the solution is tricky. Walter Reed, I believe, is scheduled to close in 2010. It's closure is in part due to old and outdated facilities, so the conditions of the buildings really shouldn't be too surprising. It's a WWII facility that in many places hasn't seen significant upgrades to the buildings.

This was again a failure of planning. The people who ran the war saw it as short and relatively painless, so housing casualties wasn't ever seen as a major issue. Now that we have thousands moving through Walter Reed the outcome has been a disaster.

I hope we don't "solve" the problem by pouring a shitload of cash into Walter Reed. I think decentralizing casualty care may help, but I honestly don't know enough to say whether or not that's feasible. If Walter Reed gets a serious upgrade I hope we don't close it in 2010 and give the newly renovated buildings on prime DC land to those connected to whomever is running the White House at the time.

[Rando]

Who was that guy in here who was claiming that the VA was the model for universal health care in this country?

Walter Reed isn't a VA faculty. It's a military medical center, operated by the Army under the DoD.

VA medical centers are administered and operated by the Veterans Heath Administration under the DVA.

These two are separate systems with separate bureaucracies under separate cabinet departments.

It is this separation between the two systems that is at the root of what is one of the biggest problems the VA is facing right now, the time it takes to processes and transfer discharged veterans from one system to the other. As the numbers of discharged veterans grows, case workers are being swamped, backlogs are growing, records aren't coming over from the DoD in a timely manner, if at all, and too many veterans are finding themselves on their own to deal with some often very serious and always very expensive health problems. This is a problem the VA needs to do more to address.

But the soldiers in the article linked above haven't even had a chance to run into that problem. These are still U.S. Army patients. They haven't been discharged. They're still struggling under an system that doesn't seem able to let them go, even if it doesn't know who they are. And when the do finally get discharged, they're not going to be provided with the information they need about what they need to do next, who they need to contact, how to get enrolled in the VA system.

[SFL Cat]

I do think if we're sending these volunteers into harm's way and they get shot/blown up, they rate the best available medical care. If our government can subsidize illegal resident's housing, they can damn well take care of our soldiers.

[Warhammer]

Hate to break the news to you, but the nation has always treated its vets poorly. This isn't the first time something like this has happened.

[miked]

There was an interesting article in Wired magazine a few weeks ago about a pretty nasty antibiotic-resistant strain of bacteria being brought back by troops from Iraq. It was kind of circuitous, saying it may have originated in Europe at the facilities in Germany where our troops are treated, but either way it's making its way through the battlefield hospitals, and eventually in to the states.

[gstelmack]

Discover has a pretty good article on this this month. An interesting point they make is that the care at the front lines has become very, very, very good, to the point that people with very severe injuries are surviving at a much higher rate than ever. But the support system for them after the initial care has not kept up.

I think this is one of those unintended consequences no one saw coming (the injuries the guys are surviving are far more serious), and they are trying to catch up. The first step is recognizing the problem...

[MrBigglesworth]

Who was that guy in here who was claiming that the VA was the model for universal health care in this country?
Walter Reed isn't a VA faculty. It's a military medical center, operated by the Army under the DoD.

VA medical centers are administered and operated by the Veterans Heath Administration under the DVA.

These two are separate systems with separate bureaucracies under separate cabinet departments.
st.cronin = pwned

[MrBigglesworth]

I don't understand why this is a problem. Funding for Veterans has bipartisan support and unwavering public support. Since it is run by the Army I am assuming the Army funds it, which means it comes out of the military budget, and military budget increases are perhaps the easiest increases to push through congress. The whole situation is just baffling to me.

[Izulde]

I don't understand why this is a problem. Funding for Veterans has bipartisan support and unwavering public support. Since it is run by the Army I am assuming the Army funds it, which means it comes out of the military budget, and military budget increases are perhaps the easiest increases to push through congress. The whole situation is just baffling to me.

It's not as simple as throwing money at the problem.

From what I read in that article, the bureaucratic morass and extremely shoddy oversight, miscommunications, and gross incompetence are equally, if not more so to blame than funding.

[Drake]

Maybe I'm not following, but why are you mad at Bush and the current administration for this particular problem? I'm not a fan of the man myself, but I don't see where he's responsible for this one.

[MrBigglesworth]

Maybe I'm not following, but why are you mad at Bush and the current administration for this particular problem? I'm not a fan of the man myself, but I don't see where he's responsible for this one.
It's the Army, and he is the Commander-in-Chief and the Decider. It's not completely his fault, obviously, but with leadership comes responsibility. He is also, according to Snow, refusing to even comment on the matter.

[MrBigglesworth]

It's not as simple as throwing money at the problem.

From what I read in that article, the bureaucratic morass and extremely shoddy oversight, miscommunications, and gross incompetence are equally, if not more so to blame than funding.

But still, normally if something in government remains screwed up there is some kind of interest group that is resisting change. There is no interest group that is against Veterans. Either nobody cares or someone is resisting changes, and neither seems to be particularly likely to me.

[Drake]

This just seems like an odd thing to pile on the president for. I mean, the guy's got enough legitimate issues that *are* directly his fault. The condition of Walter Reed is a long term problem that's been festering for awhile. One could just as easily blame Clinton, Bush I or Ronald Reagan, it seems to me. It's like blaming the CEO of an auto maker because some middle management guy at a plant in Tennessee mishandles a sexual harassment complaint and it ends up splashed all over the local papers.

[Drake]

dola...

This is not to say that Walter Reed isn't a mess or that the public shouldn't be outraged about it.

[astrosfan64]

Well by reading the article it states not all of the soldiers are housed this way, it looks like one building in paticular he writes about. Which, isn't cool I agree but I don't think the whole system is this bad.

I could care less about the army not having a translater on location. That whole part of the story was just silly. You live in the US, we speak English. Granted, I'm trying to learn Spanish as I want to be bilingual, but don't get upset with people or agencies that don't cater to another language.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

This just seems like an odd thing to pile on the president for. I mean, the guy's got enough legitimate issues that *are* directly his fault. The condition of Walter Reed is a long term problem that's been festering for awhile. One could just as easily blame Clinton, Bush I or Ronald Reagan, it seems to me. It's like blaming the CEO of an auto maker because some middle management guy at a plant in Tennessee mishandles a sexual harassment complaint and it ends up splashed all over the local papers.

As you can see, I didn't just pile on the President. I piled on everyone, including Congress and the military. I would like to think also that Congress could have been doing some oversight in the last few years. But no, it takes a newspaper to highlight the problem. I do think the Administration and Bush takes some heat too because it is no doubt that the Iraq war is the cause of the problem (stressing the system) but it is another example of terrible planning and lack of focus. I would like to think the Administration was proactive and always looking into things like this. But obviously not. And the military, someone somewhere up the chain had to know this was happening, but yet no action was taken in-house. There's lots of blame. The simple fact is that money would solve alot of the problem (yes, throwing money at it would help). New facilities could have been built in the last 4 years, more doctors and staff hired, etc. It's bad all the way around.

[dawgfan]

This just seems like an odd thing to pile on the president for. I mean, the guy's got enough legitimate issues that *are* directly his fault. The condition of Walter Reed is a long term problem that's been festering for awhile. One could just as easily blame Clinton, Bush I or Ronald Reagan, it seems to me. It's like blaming the CEO of an auto maker because some middle management guy at a plant in Tennessee mishandles a sexual harassment complaint and it ends up splashed all over the local papers.
Just to take a devil's advocate position here...

I suspect a better solution to this problem than throwing money at it is for someone in power to use their political position as a bully pulpit to focus attention on the issues and make it a political priority to fix the administrative and bureaucratic issues that are at the root of the problem. Given that the war in Iraq is Bush's baby, and it's the soldiers coming back from Iraq that are the primary current victims of the problems at Walter Reed, there is some justification for thinking that Bush should make it a priority to address these problems. I think it's fair to say that without the war in Iraq, there wouldn't be nearly as many soldiers being subject to the problems at Walter Reed.

At the very least, you'd think that the Democratic leadership in Congress would latch onto this issue and put some pressure on the Defense Department to figure out how to improve the situation.

[miami_fan]

Well by reading the article it states not all of the soldiers are housed this way, it looks like one building in paticular he writes about. Which, isn't cool I agree but I don't think the whole system is this bad.

I could care less about the army not having a translater on location. That whole part of the story was just silly. You live in the US, we speak English. Granted, I'm trying to learn Spanish as I want to be bilingual, but don't get upset with people or agencies that don't cater to another language.

Re-read the article.

From the article

If they can have Spanish-speaking recruits to convince my son to go into the Army, why can't they have Spanish-speaking translators when he's injured?" Morales asked. "It's so confusing, so disorienting."


This is a legitimate question. As a person who has supervised troops that were recruited in Puerto Rico, I can tell you that many of them were recruited exclusively in Spanish. This is especially the case when the recruiters called their homes to speak with their parents. It is not like the translator at the hospital is required for him. It is to provide information to his mother who does not live in the U.S. about his condition. I don't think that is too much to ask.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

It is not like the translator at the hospital is required for him. It is to provide information to his mother who does not live in the U.S. about his condition. I don't think that is too much to ask.

Especially for a guy that put his life on the line for his country and now will suffer a permanent disability the rest of his life.

[Drake]

I suspect a better solution to this problem than throwing money at it is for someone in power to use their political position as a bully pulpit to focus attention on the issues and make it a political priority to fix the administrative and bureaucratic issues that are at the root of the problem.

I agree with this. Maybe I'm a bit jaded, but I *expect* the government to fuck things up, and one of the great values of a free press is that when things get fucked up (especially over time, as is the case here), someone in the media pokes the gov't with a stick and gets somebody to take a look at it.

Given that the war in Iraq is Bush's baby, and it's the soldiers coming back from Iraq that are the primary current victims of the problems at Walter Reed, there is some justification for thinking that Bush should make it a priority to address these problems. I think it's fair to say that without the war in Iraq, there wouldn't be nearly as many soldiers being subject to the problems at Walter Reed.

I'm willing to bet that Walter Reed was just as crappy when we were in Bosnia (or even before Gulf War 2: Blood Feud), but since the population of vets and guys seriously injured in the normal performance of their duties wasn't huge, it wasn't in anyone's interest to notice that things were falling apart. The war pointed out an existing problem rather than creating a specifically new problem due to lack of foresight.

But mostly, I don't see where "Bush should make it a priority". Facility maintenance seems to be outside the scope of duties for the Commander-in-Chief, much like running the motor pool is outside the scope of duties for a base commander. Sure, if the motor pool gets fucked up and stops delivering working vehicles to the right places on time, then he should chew somebody out and bring in the resources to get the problem corrected, but the in general, we expect that he's got more important things to do than micromanaging the motor pool. I think the President should be doing more important things than micromanaging Walter Reed (or maybe not...maybe that would keep him out of trouble).

At the very least, you'd think that the Democratic leadership in Congress would latch onto this issue and put some pressure on the Defense Department to figure out how to improve the situation.

Let's hope so, assuming they can just get the problem fixed rather than merely turning it into a political firestorm from which no change actually comes...which is, I fear, the much more likely outcome.

[flere-imsaho]

I put the blame on Donald "You go to war with the Army you have" Rumsfeld. Inasmuch as I'll blame Bush, I'll blame him for believing people like Rumsfeld.

All of the "war planners" (Cheney, Rumsfeld, Bush, Wolfowitz, etc...) are on record as not expecting the Iraq War to drag on for as long as it has, or be as damaging as it has. Speaking specifically about the Army, Rumsfeld took this rosy view of the Iraq War and used it to "plan" for the Army's involvement. When he (and the Army) turned out to be wrong, clearly none of the planning necessary to logistically support a protracted occupation had been done.

This is how you get Walter Reed, this is how you get a lack of up-armored Humvees (which are still in service in Iraq), this is how you get Guard troops with broken or too-old equipment, this is how you get Guard troops rationing their ammunition and buying ammunition on the black market, this is how you get soldiers buying their own body armor, etc....

That's the bottom line, I think. Among the many things the Iraq War is, it is an example of the results of a complete and utter lack of long-term logistical planning, and the current conditions at Walter Reed are just a good illustrative example of the results.

[dawgfan]

I'm willing to bet that Walter Reed was just as crappy when we were in Bosnia (or even before Gulf War 2: Blood Feud), but since the population of vets and guys seriously injured in the normal performance of their duties wasn't huge, it wasn't in anyone's interest to notice that things were falling apart. The war pointed out an existing problem rather than creating a specifically new problem due to lack of foresight.

But mostly, I don't see where "Bush should make it a priority". Facility maintenance seems to be outside the scope of duties for the Commander-in-Chief, much like running the motor pool is outside the scope of duties for a base commander. Sure, if the motor pool gets fucked up and stops delivering working vehicles to the right places on time, then he should chew somebody out and bring in the resources to get the problem corrected, but the in general, we expect that he's got more important things to do than micromanaging the motor pool. I think the President should be doing more important things than micromanaging Walter Reed (or maybe not...maybe that would keep him out of trouble).
I don't think Bush should micromanage the Walter Reed situation, and I'm sure the problems existed prior to the Iraq War. But I do think, given that the Iraq War has greatly increased the number of injured soldiers requiring care at Walter Reed, and given that the Iraq War is something for which Bush carries the lion's share of responsibility, that he is a prime candidate for pushing for reforms to solve the problems at Walter Reed. Of course, from a political point of view, there is the possibility that his administration would view this as being a negative from an image standpoint.

Let's hope so, assuming they can just get the problem fixed rather than merely turning it into a political firestorm from which no change actually comes...which is, I fear, the much more likely outcome.
I'm afraid that would be the case as well, that it would end up being a cause of much blustering and posturing for the cameras but with little actual motivation for real action, with little to no accountability.

[Young Drachma]

This isn't a Presidential dereliction. This is too far below his radar. The Washington Post article today quoted a DOD official blaming NCOs. Some are to blame, for sure. But the real story are officers who were asleep at the wheel, because even if those NCOs weren't doing their job, there can't be any way that no one knew this place was like this and didn't do anything about it.

I'm glad it's out in the open now, though.

[MrBigglesworth]

But mostly, I don't see where "Bush should make it a priority". Facility maintenance seems to be outside the scope of duties for the Commander-in-Chief, much like running the motor pool is outside the scope of duties for a base commander. Sure, if the motor pool gets fucked up and stops delivering working vehicles to the right places on time, then he should chew somebody out and bring in the resources to get the problem corrected, but the in general, we expect that he's got more important things to do than micromanaging the motor pool. I think the President should be doing more important things than micromanaging Walter Reed (or maybe not...maybe that would keep him out of trouble).
I don't think anyone wants Bush to pick up a hammer and start fixing the hospital. They want him to chew somebody out and bring in the resources to get the problem corrected. So I think you are essentially agreeing with everyone even if you don't realize it.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17372118/

Just a follow up to those that are interested. Turns out that top officials at Walter Reed, including Army Surgeon General were well aware of what was going on at Walter Reed.

[st.cronin]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17372118/

Just a follow up to those that are interested. Turns out that top officials at Walter Reed, including Army Surgeon General were well aware of what was going on at Walter Reed.

Well, duh.

[flere-imsaho]

And here's the commanders' solution: (http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2007/02/TNSreedinspect070227/)

Soldiers at Walter Reed Army Medical Center’s Medical Hold Unit say they have been told they will wake up at 6 a.m. every morning and have their rooms ready for inspection at 7 a.m., and that they must not speak to the media.

More here, as well. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/22/AR2007022201878.html)


Maybe I'm biased because I have a brother who's returned from Iraq with serious physiological problems, but given all the money we throw at the DoD on a regular basis, it's my opinion that injured soldiers should be treated and rehabilitated in facilities that rival the best private care one can receive in the U.S., and should be allowed to stay in rehabilitation for as long as necessary.

These men and women put their lives on the line, and we're dumping them in the equivalent of a run-down, underfunded county hospital. It's disgusting.

[JonInMiddleGA]

gstelmack had probably the most salient observation in this whole thread -- the number of survivors & the seriousness of the injuries they sustained & survived has grown faster than the ability to process & care for them.

I do like the idea mentioned up the thread a bit about looking at decentralizing treatment as a possible avenue for improvement but the reality is that in an organization the size of the military, change like that isn't going to happen quickly.

[JonInMiddleGA]

http://apnews.myway.com//article/20070301/D8NJK7UG3.html

Maj. Gen. George W. Weightman has been relieved as commanding general of the North Atlantic Regional Medical Command as well as Walter Reed hospital.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Alright, more heads rolling on this one.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17423439/

After Army Secretary Francis Harvey fired Weightman, he put in Lt. Gen. Kiley, the Army Surgeon General, who many thought was well aware of what was going on at Walter Reed. Some sourcess say Defense Secreterary Gates was none to pleased by that decision on the replacement and asked Harvey to leave.

Gates commented to reporters: "I am disappointed that some in the Army have not adequately appreciated the seriousness of the situation pertaining to outpatient care at Walter Reed."

I am glad to see people being held responsible. Now, I would like to see the shortcomings at Walter Reed addressed quickly.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Another head rolls away.

Army Surgeon General Kiley forced to retire.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17579923/

[miami_fan]

I am shocked that this many heads have rolled over this incident.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Now that I have had a few more beers, looking back at my last post here to dredge up this old thread was really lame. Get over it already.

[flere-imsaho]

This makes me both angry and sad. (http://www.salon.com/news/2007/03/11/fort_benning/print.html)

The Army is ordering injured troops to go to Iraq

At Fort Benning, soldiers who were classified as medically unfit to fight are now being sent to war. Is this an isolated incident or a trend?

By Mark Benjamin

Mar. 11, 2007 | "This is not right," said Master Sgt. Ronald Jenkins, who has been ordered to Iraq even though he has a spine problem that doctors say would be damaged further by heavy Army protective gear. "This whole thing is about taking care of soldiers," he said angrily. "If you are fit to fight you are fit to fight. If you are not fit to fight, then you are not fit to fight."

As the military scrambles to pour more soldiers into Iraq, a unit of the Army's 3rd Infantry Division at Fort Benning, Ga., is deploying troops with serious injuries and other medical problems, including GIs who doctors have said are medically unfit for battle. Some are too injured to wear their body armor, according to medical records.

On Feb. 15, Master Sgt. Jenkins and 74 other soldiers with medical conditions from the 3rd Division's 3rd Brigade were summoned to a meeting with the division surgeon and brigade surgeon. These are the men responsible for handling each soldier's "physical profile," an Army document that lists for commanders an injured soldier's physical limitations because of medical problems -- from being unable to fire a weapon to the inability to move and dive in three-to-five-second increments to avoid enemy fire. Jenkins and other soldiers claim that the division and brigade surgeons summarily downgraded soldiers' profiles, without even a medical exam, in order to deploy them to Iraq. It is a claim division officials deny.

The 3,900-strong 3rd Brigade is now leaving for Iraq for a third time in a steady stream. In fact, some of the troops with medical conditions interviewed by Salon last week are already gone. Others are slated to fly out within a week, but are fighting against their chain of command, holding out hope that because of their ills they will ultimately not be forced to go. Jenkins, who is still in Georgia, thinks doctors are helping to send hurt soldiers like him to Iraq to make units going there appear to be at full strength. "This is about the numbers," he said flatly.

That is what worries Steve Robinson, director of veterans affairs at Veterans for America, who has long been concerned that the military was pressing injured troops into Iraq. "Did they send anybody down range that cannot wear a helmet, that cannot wear body armor?" Robinson asked rhetorically. "Well that is wrong. It is a war zone." Robinson thinks that the possibility that physical profiles may have been altered improperly has the makings of a scandal. "My concerns are that this needs serious investigation. You cannot just look at somebody and tell that they were fit," he said. "It smacks of an overstretched military that is in crisis mode to get people onto the battlefield."

Eight soldiers who were at the Feb. 15 meeting say they were summoned to the troop medical clinic at 6:30 in the morning and lined up to meet with division surgeon Lt. Col. George Appenzeller, who had arrived from Fort Stewart, Ga., and Capt. Aaron K. Starbuck, brigade surgeon at Fort Benning. The soldiers described having a cursory discussion of their profiles, with no physical exam or extensive review of medical files. They say Appenzeller and Starbuck seemed focused on downplaying their physical problems. "This guy was changing people's profiles left and right," said a captain who injured his back during his last tour in Iraq and was ordered to Iraq after the Feb. 15 review.

Appenzeller said the review of 75 soldiers with profiles was an effort to make sure they were as accurate as possible prior to deployment. "As the division surgeon and the senior medical officer in the division, I wanted to ensure that all the patients with profiles were fully evaluated with clear limitations that commanders could use to make the decision whether they could deploy, and if they did deploy, what their limitations would be while there," he said in a telephone interview from Fort Stewart. He said he changed less than one-third of those profiles -- even making some more restrictive -- in order to "bring them into accordance with regulations."

In direct contradiction to the account given by the soldiers, Appenzeller said physical examinations were conducted and that he had a robust medical team there working with him, which is how they managed to complete 75 reviews in one day. Appenzeller denied that the plan was to find more warm bodies for the surge into Baghdad, as did Col. Wayne W. Grigsby Jr., the brigade commander. Grigsby said he is under "no pressure" to find soldiers, regardless of health, to make his unit look fit. The health and welfare of his soldiers are a top priority, said Grigsby, because [the soldiers] are "our most important resource, perhaps the most important resource we have in this country."

Grigsby said he does not know how many injured soldiers are in his ranks. But he insisted that it is not unusual to deploy troops with physical limitations so long as he can place them in safe jobs when they get there. "They can be productive and safe in Iraq," Grigsby said.

The injured soldiers interviewed by Salon, however, expressed considerable worry about going to Iraq with physical deficits because it could endanger them or their fellow soldiers. Some were injured on previous combat tours. Some of their ills are painful conditions from training accidents or, among relatively older troops, degenerative problems like back injuries or blown-out knees. Some of the soldiers have been in the Army for decades.

And while Grigsby, the brigade commander, says he is under no pressure to find troops, it is hard to imagine there is not some desperation behind the decision to deploy some of the sick soldiers. Master Sgt. Jenkins, 42, has a degenerative spine problem and a long scar down the back of his neck where three of his vertebrae were fused during surgery. He takes a cornucopia of potent pain pills. His medical records say he is "at significantly increased risk of re-injury during deployment where he will be wearing Kevlar, body armor and traveling through rough terrain." Late last year, those medical records show, a doctor recommended that Jenkins be referred to an Army board that handles retirements when injuries are permanent and severe.

A copy of Jenkins' profile written after that Feb. 15 meeting and signed by Capt. Starbuck, the brigade surgeon, shows a healthier soldier than the profile of Jenkins written by another doctor just late last year, though Jenkins says his condition is unchanged. Other soldiers' documents show the same pattern.

One female soldier with psychiatric issues and a spine problem has been in the Army for nearly 20 years. "My [health] is deteriorating," she said over dinner at a restaurant near Fort Benning. "My spine is separating. I can't carry gear." Her medical records include the note "unable to deploy overseas." Her status was also reviewed on Feb. 15. And she has been ordered to Iraq this week.

The captain interviewed by Salon also requested anonymity because he fears retribution. He suffered a back injury during a previous deployment to Iraq as an infantry platoon leader. A Humvee accident "corkscrewed my spine," he explained. Like the female soldier, he is unable to wear his protective gear, and like her he too was ordered to Iraq after his meeting with the division surgeon and brigade surgeon on Feb. 15. He is still at Fort Benning and is fighting the decision to send him to Baghdad. "It is a numbers issue with this whole troop surge," he claimed. "They are just trying to get those numbers."

Another soldier contacted Salon by telephone last week expressed considerable anxiety, in a frightened tone, about deploying to Iraq in her current condition. (She also wanted to remain anonymous, fearing retribution.) An incident during training several years ago injured her back, forcing doctors to remove part of her fractured coccyx. She suffers from degenerative disk disease and has two ruptured disks and a bulging disk in her back. While she said she loves the Army and would like to deploy after back surgery, her current injuries would limit her ability to wear her full protective gear. She deployed to Iraq last week, the day after calling Salon.

Her husband, who has served three combat tours in the infantry in Afghanistan and Iraq, said he is worried sick because his wife's protective vest alone exceeds the maximum amount she is allowed to lift. "I have been over there three times. I know what it is like," he told me during lunch at a restaurant here. He predicted that by deploying people like his wife, the brigade leaders are "going to get somebody killed over there." He said there is "no way" Grigsby is going to keep all of the injured soldiers in safe jobs. "All of these people that deploy with these profiles, they are scared," he said. He railed at the command: "They are saying they don't care about your health. This is pathetic. It is bad."

His wife's physical profile was among those reevaluated on Feb. 15. A copy of her profile from late last year showed her health problems were so severe they "prevent deployment" and recommended she be medically retired from the Army. Her profile at that time showed she was unable to wear a protective mask and chemical defense equipment, and had limitations on doing pushups, walking, biking and swimming. It said she can only carry 15 pounds.

Though she says that her condition has not changed since then, almost all of those findings were reversed in a copy of her physical profile dated Feb. 15. The new profile says nothing about a medical retirement, but suggests that she limit wearing a helmet to "one hour at a time."

Spc. Lincoln Smith, meanwhile, developed sleep apnea after he returned from his first deployment to Iraq. The condition is so severe that he now suffers from narcolepsy because of a lack of sleep. He almost nodded off mid-conversation while talking to Salon as he sat in a T-shirt on a sofa in his girlfriend's apartment near Fort Benning.

Smith is trained by the Army to be a truck driver. But since he is in constant danger of falling asleep, military doctors have listed "No driving of military vehicles" on his physical profile. Smith was supposed to fly to Iraq March 9. But he told me on March 8 that he won't go. Nobody has retrained Smith to do anything else besides drive trucks. Plus, because of his condition he was unable to train properly with the unit when the brigade rehearsed for Iraq in January, so he does not feel ready.

Smith needs to sleep with a CPAP (continuous positive airway pressure) machine pumping air into his mouth and nose. "Otherwise," he says, "I could die." But based on his last tour, he is not convinced he will be able to be in places with constant electricity or will be able to fix or replace his CPAP machine should it fail.

He told me last week he would refuse to deploy to Iraq, unsure of what he will be asked to do there and afraid that he will not be taken care of. Since he won't be a truck driver, "I would be going basically as a number," says Smith, who is 32. "They don't have enough people," he says. But he is not going to be one of those numbers until they train him to do something else. "I'm going to go to the airport, and I'm going to tell them I'm not going to go. They are going to give me a weapon. I am going to say, 'It is not a good idea for you to give me a weapon right now.'"

The Pentagon was notified of the reclassification of the Fort Benning soldiers as soon as it happened, according to Master Sgt. Jenkins. He showed Salon an e-mail describing the situation that he says he sent to Army Surgeon General Lt. Gen. Kevin C. Kiley. Jenkins agreed to speak to Salon because he hopes public attention will help other soldiers, particularly younger ones in a similar predicament. "I can't sit back and let this happen to me or other soldiers in my position." But he expects reprisals from the Army.

Other soldiers slated to leave for Iraq with injuries said they wonder whether the same thing is happening in other units in the Army. "You have to ask where else this might be happening and who is dictating it," one female soldier told me. "How high does it go?"

[JonInMiddleGA]

flere - although this latest blurb probably bears some looking into, it's also no great secret that many a soldier has been known to play their profile for all it's worth. I don't find it the least bit far-fetched to think that a revision of their status might well have been the correct call in a number of cases.

[st.cronin]

flere - although this latest blurb probably bears some looking into, it's also no great secret that many a soldier has been known to play their profile for all it's worth. I don't find it the least bit far-fetched to think that a revision of their status might well have been the correct call in a number of cases.

Yes, note the article points out that doctors are clearing these soldiers for duty. I think its pretty far fetched to draw the conclusion the article wants us to draw.

[PSUColonel]

This is not new news, but I too would like to see this problem solved.

[flere-imsaho]

flere - although this latest blurb probably bears some looking into, it's also no great secret that many a soldier has been known to play their profile for all it's worth. I don't find it the least bit far-fetched to think that a revision of their status might well have been the correct call in a number of cases.

Yes, note the article points out that doctors are clearing these soldiers for duty. I think its pretty far fetched to draw the conclusion the article wants us to draw.

I have only my brother's experience to draw upon:

During Basic Training, he contracted what was later found to be Strep Throat. It went undiagnosed for 4 weeks, and untreated for another two. He left Basic 20 pounds lighter than when he went in, and he went in not as a fatty, but as a world-class biathlete. Basic essentially made him less fit.

During training for deployment to Iraq, due to an accident with artillery ammunition (he was not involved, just in the vicinity) he lost 90% of the hearing in his left ear. This effects his ability to determine where sounds are coming from. He also, from this point in time, has suffered from unexplained period headaches. He never received treatment for this and deployed to Iraq anyway.

In Iraq, he was injured many times, including a serious back injury when he was blown out of his Humvee by an IED. This injury was never treated in Iraq, and he was on patrol two days after having his Humvee blown up. One of the other guys in the Humvee suffered multiple injuries including a sizable hole in his leg. He was kept in a med tent for a month in Ramadi before being sent to Germany for treatment. When Ben returned to the States, two private doctors confirmed that he suffered a fused spine, and he has been having regular treatment since then (via private care, the VA refuses to do anything) to resolve this issue.

So you'll forgive me if I find it completely believable that the army is redeploying injured soldiers and/or not treating them properly in theatre or out of it.

[st.cronin]

I have only my brother's experience to draw upon:

During Basic Training, he contracted what was later found to be Strep Throat. It went undiagnosed for 4 weeks, and untreated for another two. He left Basic 20 pounds lighter than when he went in, and he went in not as a fatty, but as a world-class biathlete. Basic essentially made him less fit.

During training for deployment to Iraq, due to an accident with artillery ammunition (he was not involved, just in the vicinity) he lost 90% of the hearing in his left ear. This effects his ability to determine where sounds are coming from. He also, from this point in time, has suffered from unexplained period headaches. He never received treatment for this and deployed to Iraq anyway.

In Iraq, he was injured many times, including a serious back injury when he was blown out of his Humvee by an IED. This injury was never treated in Iraq, and he was on patrol two days after having his Humvee blown up. One of the other guys in the Humvee suffered multiple injuries including a sizable hole in his leg. He was kept in a med tent for a month in Ramadi before being sent to Germany for treatment. When Ben returned to the States, two private doctors confirmed that he suffered a fused spine, and he has been having regular treatment since then (via private care, the VA refuses to do anything) to resolve this issue.

So you'll forgive me if I find it completely believable that the army is redeploying injured soldiers and/or not treating them properly in theatre or out of it.


Of course, errors in judgement are not unheard of. The implication that this is something systemic and intentional is what I'm reacting to. I guess its possible, but to me it really seems farfetched.

[flere-imsaho]

How "systemic" does it have to be? Isn't it possible that what's happened here is that career-minded higher-ups in the DoD have told their subordinates "we have to make the numbers for deployments, so make the numbers" and the subordinates have found a way to make it happen? Is that really so far outside the bounds of reality?

[st.cronin]

How "systemic" does it have to be? Isn't it possible that what's happened here is that career-minded higher-ups in the DoD have told their subordinates "we have to make the numbers for deployments, so make the numbers" and the subordinates have found a way to make it happen? Is that really so far outside the bounds of reality?

In my opinion, yes, its only slightly more plausible than saying that the moon landing was faked. The "numbers" have no real meaning within the military, and I saw many real world situations where we had to deploy with x instead of y. Maybe this time its different, but to me it seems pretty out there.

This is not to say that the military doesn't do a bad job recognizing medical conditions, and especially mental health medical conditions. But that's not the same thing as to say that they are deliberately shipping troops that can't do the job. That would be pointless and would probably expose people to criminal charges. It just doesn't add up as plausible to me.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Is that really so far outside the bounds of reality?

Impossible? No.

As likely as making needed corrections in status? Not even close.

[flere-imsaho]

In my opinion, yes, its only slightly more plausible than saying that the moon landing was faked. The "numbers" have no real meaning within the military, and I saw many real world situations where we had to deploy with x instead of y. Maybe this time its different, but to me it seems pretty out there.

It's different, and it's not different. My brother's unit deployed initially at somewhere between 1/3 and 1/2 strength, so clearly the numbers can be fudged for deployment. That hasn't changed.

What may have changed, especially now that we're several years into this war, is that the Army is now having to go to greater lengths even to make the "lower" numbers. We've all read about the recruiting problems (and this is a greater problem for Reserve & Guard units, who are still being deployed), and the fact that the Army is relaxing standards (http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/02/14/america/web.0214military.php) for recruits. Again, is it truly unlikely that the brass would try to keep numbers up by finding a way to get injuries downplayed?

This is not to say that the military doesn't do a bad job recognizing medical conditions, and especially mental health medical conditions. But that's not the same thing as to say that they are deliberately shipping troops that can't do the job. That would be pointless and would probably expose people to criminal charges. It just doesn't add up as plausible to me.

I'm not suggesting that they're "deliberately shipping troops that can't do the job." I'm suggesting that the chain of command has put pressure on those doing medical evaluations to give injured soldiers less leeway for avoiding redeployment.


Edit: It sounds like you're willing to attribute to simple incompetence what I'm trying to attribute to a combination of incompetence (in some cases), bureaucratic red tape (in other cases), and the improper use of influence (in still other cases).

[Fighter of Foo]

In my opinion, yes, its only slightly more plausible than saying that the moon landing was faked. The "numbers" have no real meaning within the military, and I saw many real world situations where we had to deploy with x instead of y. Maybe this time its different, but to me it seems pretty out there.


The only thing that gives me pause is that considering how fccked up the war has been handled and the amount of disinformation spread by the Bush administration, I can't dismiss something like this completely.

It makes me sad. :(