Active Desertion / Death Counts, various comparisons and reports Options

[MarionMansfield]

The web-site I check to see the number of casualties and wounded is:

http://icasualties.org/oif/default.aspx

Please see also how they arrive at their figures:

http://icasualties.org/oif/Methodology.aspx

[Gabrielle]

Marion, they list 12,855 as being wounded in action. And they seem to have a very long list and a detailed one of how those injuries occurred. These don't sound like mild injuries, either, which confirms my previous suspicions regarding the nature of this war (ie high explosives). I wonder how they're classifying "injury" versus "illness" in the site Desron mentioned.

In the links to news pieces on the wounded soldiers - many paralyzed, many losing multiple limbs, with severe burns, etc. they're all transferred to Germany. Yet there are almost no reports of dead coming out of Landstuhl.

This post has been edited by Gabrielle: Jul 4 2005, 10:04 AM

[flydangler]

http://archsurg.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/a...act/139/11/1231

Results  Seven thousand four hundred twenty-three severe trauma patients were recorded. Inpatient death rates decreased significantly from 21.6% in 1997 to 14.7% in 2001. The odds ratios of mortality in 1998 through 2001 vs 1997, adjusted for year, age, sex, penetrating injury, and severity of injury (Injury Severity Score >25), were 0.92, 0.89, 0.70, and 0.65, respectively, confirming the downward trend.

If we take 15,000 and multiply it by 0.15 that gives us 2,250 deceased. And that's just the percentage of wounded that should have statistically died.

Methinks these statistical projections are a bit bogus and/or foolhardy, maybe even wishful thinkin', eh?.

How many of them trauma patients from your AMA data were wearing protective body armor? How many were ridin' in armored vehicles? How many were immediately treated for their injuries using definitive medical means by well trained personnel? How many were quickly triaged and evacuated by helo to well equipped and staffed trauma units? Methinks you get my drift.

And of course our military is fudgin' these casualty figures, eh? (sic) A few on this site seem to want to project the most negative image of our military folks possible methinks..........

Don't you folks think things are bad enough? Do you really think wishful thinkin' and negative conjecture that they're much worse 'cause it makes you more comfortable with your ideology is better? 'Twould seem 'tis bad enough when politicians do it for political reasons, but a few here make me sick with their efforts!

[Gabrielle]

If we take 15,000 and multiply it by 0.15 that gives us 2,250 deceased.  And that's just the percentage of wounded that should have statistically died. Methinks these statistical projections are a bit bogus and/or foolhardy, maybe even wishful thinkin', eh?.

How many of them trauma patients from your AMA data were wearing protective body armor? How many were ridin' in armored vehicles? How many were immediately treated for their injuries using definitive medical means by well trained personnel? How many were quickly triaged and evacuated by helo to well equipped and staffed trauma units? Methinks you get my drift.

And of course our military is fudgin' these casualty figures, eh? (sic) A few on this site seem to want to project the most negative image of our military folks possible methinks..........

Don't you folks think things are bad enough? Do you really think wishful thinkin' and negative conjecture that they're much worse 'cause it makes you more comfortable with your ideology is better? 'Twould seem 'tis bad enough when politicians do it for political reasons, but a few here make me sick with their efforts!

Well, for one thing, the troops in Iraq didn't always have protective body armor, as I recall. And for another thing, protective body armor doesn't stop high explosives. At least it doesn't stop it all the time and it definitely does not protect the face and frontal head. If it did and our troops had this armor at all times then we wouldn't see so many wounded and dead.

All the patients that are treated at Level I trauma centers get prompt immediate care from the best trained physicians and nurses and lab technicians and x-ray technologists, respiratory therapists, etc. in the world. I find it difficult to believe in a country like Iraq, in which the roads and other important infrastructure are in such a state of disarray, that a man could be transported through hostile territory under such conditions and arrive in as good of shape as they do when they've been in a MVA not involving a HUM-V or received a gunshot wound or other wound not involving high explosives here in the United States where our roads are comparitively pristine and for the most part you don't have to worry about IED's. I wonder who's doing the wishful thinking here, flydangler?

I'm sorry if my drive to find the truth sickens you. What I find sickening is the lies and attempts by many to look the other way. What I find sickening is our government and those in our population who find reality based living passe.

[ghostgovt]

Some here only wish to support the lies of BushCo in their attempts to suppress any possible information that allows us to be more aware of what is possibly really going on.... and by some going out of their way to block or obstruct information about new discoveries that exposes BushCo tactics, simply screams Bush mentalities here in this forum who are pushing the republican agendas with such double talk banter that is done for damage control in behalf of this Bush regime. All posts supporting this topic is purely legit and on the up and up to learn more about this highly suspicious possible cover-up. Any 'true' American would support these efforts to know the truth. The rest are air headed propaganda pushers best known as 'sheeple'.



This article supports the huge volume of Iraq / Afghanistan war vets injured and taken to this German hospital, Landstuhl Regional Medical Center.


http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/mld/ledgere...ws/11770283.htm
Posted on Sun, May. 29, 2005


Hospital in Germany copes with heavy flow of wounded from Iran, Afghanistan

MATT MOORE

Associated Press

LANDSTUHL, Germany - With its quiet, winding halls, Landstuhl Regional Medical Center at first looks like just another community hospital. But it has become a front line in the Iraq and Afghan wars thousands of miles away.

The patients - young soldiers with faces lacerated by flying glass and shrapnel from exploding roadside bombs, others missing a leg or arm - shuffle by, heading for an appointment or checkup. At this military hospital, there is a constant stream of new faces.

An average of about 23 patients arrive each day - most from Iraq, where more than 12,350 soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen have been injured since the U.S.-led war began in March 2003. The flow can spike sharply, as it did during the battle for Fallujah: 537 over two days.

Fighting in Afghanistan adds more patients. Since troops arrived there in October 2001, 455 have been wounded in action through early this May, almost all of them coming to Landstuhl with injuries and wounds not normally found in a civilian hospital.

In civilian medicine, "a blast injury is a very rare event," said Army Col. Rhonda Cornum, the hospital's medical director. "Unfortunately, it's a very common thing here."

It's not just common, it's a near daily diagnosis, said Cornum, a former POW in the first Gulf War who is wrapping up nearly two years as head of the biggest overseas U.S. military hospital and preparing to return to the United States.

There was a time, years ago, when Landstuhl had to justify its existence. No longer.

"Things have changed. We used to get as many trauma victims in a year from Europe and Africa as we now do a day," said Cornum.

Though major combat in Iraq was declared over in May 2003, daily attacks by a stubborn insurgency has kept the hospital, nestled among thick woods on a hilltop that overlooks this small town, busy day and night.

Troops from Iraq arrive with a host of injuries - eyes damaged by roadside bombs or limbs shredded beyond repair - along with maladies more common to a community hospital like heart attacks, hammer toes and kidney stones.

The staff doesn't expect a slowdown.

"This place is just not what it once was," said U.S. Air Force Col. Todd Hess, the chief deputy commander of clinical services.

This post has been edited by ghostgovt: Jul 4 2005, 10:40 AM

[Gabrielle]

Don't you folks think things are bad enough? Do you really think wishful thinkin' and negative conjecture that they're much worse 'cause it makes you more comfortable with your ideology is better? 'Twould seem 'tis bad enough when politicians do it for political reasons, but a few here make me sick with their efforts!

How to you extrapolate from my posts that I am sitting here wishfully hoping that more men and women have been killed in Iraq than are reported officially by the Pentagon? You think I enjoy the idea of dead military men and women? You think I enjoy the idea of women raising families on their own because their fathers were killed in Iraq? You think I enjoy thinking about children who lost their mothers in this war and will have to grow up without them? You think I enjoy thinking about all the men who have lost beloved members of their military family?

You want to know my motivation? Well here it is:

I don't want the government to get away with killing more of our men than they've got the guts to admit they're sending to their deaths! For a LIE! I want the killing to STOP! And I believe when the American people know the truth about what has really been going on behind the scenes they will DEMAND that it STOP. That is why I am devoted to finding and spreading the truth. You show me numbers, you give me a well reasoned argument for why I am wrong to think the Pentagon has not lied and I will bow down to your superior assessment of the situation. Until then, do not try to strong arm me into backing down with emotional accusations that I *want* there to be more dead US soldiers.

This post has been edited by Gabrielle: Jul 4 2005, 10:43 AM

[ghostgovt]

Even as this case of this particular Iraq vet shows him dying in an American hospital, would this vet be counted as an Iraq war dead coming off a serious injury in Iraq but died in our American hospital due to 'other' complications? I am suspecting that there are many such cases where war vets are extracted from a war zone and later dies of 'other' complications in another country other than the initial 'war' zone.


http://news.tbo.com/news/MGBOQV3TH9E.html
Jun 3, 2005

TAMPA - A young Marine who died while being treated at Tampa's James A. Haley VA Medical Center did not receive adequate care from staff who failed to recognize the severity of his condition, the U.S. Veterans Affairs Department concluded in a report released Thursday.

An investigation by VA's inspector general acknowledged that Lance Cpl. Jonathan Gadsden arrived at Haley ``highly compromised'' by blast injuries suffered in Iraq.

The hospital's clinical staff, however, ``simply did not grasp how inherently fragile this patient was,'' the inspector general's June 1 report stated.

With special facilities for treating spinal cord injuries and traumatic brain wounds, Haley handles not only veterans from past wars but those from Iraq and Afghanistan.

Gadsden, 21, died Oct. 22 of bacterial meningitis, two months after sustaining severe injuries to his head, chest, abdomen and back when his Humvee hit an improvised explosive device in Al Anbar province, according to the June 1 report.

[ghostgovt]

This article adds to the increasing tension among the ranks in Iraq, which certainly reflects shades of Vietnam all over again. I'm now trying to remember now if such deaths under Pentagon investigations are also held up in 'to date' death counts until decisions are made as to how soldiers were killed or died?


http://www.workers.org/2005/world/iraq-0623/

Was it 'fragging'?

GI casualties increase in Iraq

By Greg Butterfield
Published Jun 15, 2005 8:23 PM

First Lt. Louis Allen and Capt. Philip Esposito, two officers assigned to a New York National Guard unit in Tikrit, Iraq, were killed in their sleep on June 7. The Pentagon is investigating their deaths as a possible “fragging”—an act of retaliation by a rank-and-file soldier or soldiers.

Four explosions destroyed the room where Esposito, a company commander and Wall Street broker, and Allen, the company operations officer and son of a New York City cop, were sleeping in a presidential residence commandeered by the U.S. military. The cause of death was initially reported as “indirect fire” from a mortar attack. But by June 11, the New York Daily News reported, the Pentagon was investigating “suspicious circumstances.”

“We don’t believe their deaths were caused by an enemy combat attack,” an unnamed military source told the Daily News. “We believe there was a crime here.”

Such a “crime,” if it occurred, would mark a qualitative change in the morale of G.I.s in Iraq and the level of resistance within the U.S. military itself.

This post has been edited by ghostgovt: Jul 4 2005, 12:21 PM

[flydangler]

Methinks, even though I had 30 years in military medicine and experience with the ins and outs of casualty treatment, medical evacuation, morbidity reportin' and its methodology, Gabrielle et al don't wanna hear anything more from me on this. That bein' the case would DailyKOS be an acceptable source?

'Twould seem lawnorder was nice enough to provide links to DailyKOS items here and here y'all might find educational, eh? Of course that probably don't fit in too well with the viewpoint, ideology and/or agenda of some here, so next methinks we'll be hearin' how kos has gone over to the dark side and is now a Rush listenin' Bush lovin' neocon freeper too.

[Gabrielle]

Methinks, even though I had 30 years in military medicine and experience with the ins and outs of casualty treatment, medical evacuation, morbidity reportin' and its methodology, Gabrielle et al don't wanna hear anything more from me on this.

Flydangler,

Don't sell yourself so short as to think I don't want to hear more from you on this subject. I've got a feeling you're very well versed in both the medical treatment of combat wounded and the creative accounting practices that go into tallying up the totals. And judging whether death resulted from a "medical illness" or from "trauma" can be so subjective in the gray "real world." None of those cut and dry black and whites we have the luxury to pontificate here in our Monday morning quarterbacking. Coming from a medical field, myself, I understand how important those final numbers can be and how one must pay special attention to count them ever so correctly.

I think the problem you and I have is that I still speak "Oldspeak." And I suppose in the end - it's not actually forgery - not when we've got Goldstein (oh, I mean UBL to hunt down). It's merely "the substitution of one piece of nonsense for another."

But actually, he thought as he re-adjusted the Ministry of Plenty's figures, it was not even forgery. It was merely the substitution of one piece of nonsense for another. Most of the material that you were dealing with had no connexion with anything in the real world, not even the kind of connexion that is contained in a direct lie. Statistics were just as much a fantasy in their original version as in their rectified version.

- George Orwell, 1984

This post has been edited by Gabrielle: Jul 4 2005, 04:17 PM

[ghostgovt]

Now, from this article in the NY Daily News, does it not read that approx 4,000 out of 15,000 (war zone patients) are battle casualties, in which to me, they are suggesting DEAD. I know it's a little iffy, but it sure sounds like approx 4,000 dead.

[More than 15,000 war zone patients have already cycled through Landstuhl, nearly 13,000 from Iraq. An estimated 4,000 are classified as battle casualties; the rest have been treated for bunions and backaches, asthma and appendicitis, testicular cancer and a recent rash of viral pneumonia cases.]



http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/202419p-174685c.html
June 13, 2004

The casualties of war

Thousands of soldiers have been wounded in Iraq.
Many of the most serious cases go through Landstuhl.

Special Report

By THOMAS M. DeFRANK
DAILY NEWS WASHINGTON BUREAU CHIEF

LANDSTUHL, Germany - For every flag-draped coffin the American people aren't allowed to see coming home from Iraq, there are at least four other casualties of war like Spec. Roy Harper they don't hear about, either.

[More than 15,000 war zone patients have already cycled through Landstuhl, nearly 13,000 from Iraq. An estimated 4,000 are classified as battle casualties; the rest have been treated for bunions and backaches, asthma and appendicitis, testicular cancer and a recent rash of viral pneumonia cases.]

[Marine]

Desron,
As a military  man, I'm sure you are aware that it is common practice for the miltary to fudge the numbers regarding wounded and deceased.

OK, I see what you're saying - many of these wounded were not traumas.  There is an argument to be made that the high explosives are so deadly that the men and women don't survive long enough to make it to the helicopter for transport out of Iraq.  But it is my understanding that as soon as they get on the helicopter they are no longer counted in the official war casualty list.

According to this source you cited it lists 2,442 US Army Evacuations from Iraq
Wounded In Action  which is 363 deaths in Landstuhl at least according to the 16.2 % mortality for gunshot wounds.  So, how many of the officially listed are said to have died in Landstuhl?

Maybe it's common practice in your imagination but in the United States casualty figures aren't fudged. And if you could site a source where your understanding came from that when they get on a helicopter it somehow magically removes them from being counted as a casualty would definitely help out.

[Gabrielle]

[More than 15,000 war zone patients have already cycled through Landstuhl, nearly 13,000 from Iraq. An estimated 4,000 are classified as battle casualties; the rest have been treated for bunions and backaches, asthma and appendicitis, testicular cancer and a recent rash of viral pneumonia cases.]

gg,

I find the notion that they're transporting soldiers 18 hours to Landstuhl for bunions incredible. First of all 9 out of 10 bunions occur in females. Secondly, they're usually managed successfully without operation. Below is a general run down of how soldiers are triaged in Iraq. I see no reason why anything from bunions, backaches, asthma, and even appendicitis can't be managed in a Level 3 field hospital. They've got surgeons andICU packs and all kinds of operating equipment there. It seems in someone with appendicitis, especially, you wouldn't want to transfer them 18 hours to receive treatment if you have a surgeon right in front of you. In that 18 hours the appendix could rupture.

Right now, he explained, most American troops injured in the face and neck first receive Level 1 care, consisting of first aid and other stopgap measures provided by a combat medic in their fighting unit. They are then quickly transported to what's known as Level 2 or 3 care -- either a small, mobile medical staff following the unit, or a larger field hospital.

If more care is needed, the patient is airlifted to Landstuhl, the military's only Level 4 center outside the United States. These patients are sometimes accompanied by a surgeon, nurse and anesthesiologist in a journey that takes an average of 18 hours.

Here is an article from the New England Journal of Medicine that discusses the incredible system they've got set up on the ground in Iraq. These people can 100% operate on appendicitis. As far as I can tell the only reason to transfer a patient with appendicitis is if, in fact, the appendix has already ruptured and they are in bad shape and in need of sophisticated ICU management (which they appear to also do in the local field hospitals).

So, it seems to make sense that anyone transferred to a Level 4 (ie Landstuhl) facility has got something major going on. I suspect most of these "appendicitis, bunions, and backaches" are really undeclared traumas or perhaps more likely, they are undeclared psychiatric patients suffering from PTSD that are no longer able to function in the theater. I can see why the Pentagon would have a difficult time fessing up to either of these two scenarios. Or, they may be transferred to Landstuhl for some other reason (ie undisclosed illnesses such as outbreaks of multiresistant Acinetobacter baumanii or exposure to chemical or biological weapons, or exposure to some of the DoD's more high tech weapons) and that these are listed as "bunions, headaches, backaches and the like." It's very easy for the physician to list "bunion" instead of PTSD for admission - especially when that physician is ordered to do so by his/her superiors.

On the other hand, the NEJM article points out some important considerations that may account for the apparent decline in mortality from what we might expect considering the nature of their wounds. They've set up what is actually a pretty cool system over there in which they open up a patient, start damage control operations and leave the guy open surgically during which time he's transferred to the next level of care - the Combat Support Hospital. They get the major trauma surgeries out of the way and then leave the abdomen open and send the guy to the next level of care where the more tedious work of suturing the bowel back together (reanastomosing the bowel), etc. can take place. It's very impressive, actually.

Today, military surgical strategy aims for damage control, not definitive repair, unless it can be done quickly. Teams pack off liver injuries, staple off perforated bowel, wash out dirty wounds — whatever is necessary to stop bleeding and control contamination without allowing the patient to lose body temperature or become coagulopathic. Surgeons seek to limit surgery to two hours or less, and then ship the patient off to a Combat Support Hospital (CSH), the next level of care. Abdomens can be left open, laparotomy pads left in, bowel unanastomosed, the patient paralyzed, sedated, and ventilated. For this approach to be successful, however, control of air space and major roadways and establishment of the next-level hospital (achieved early in Iraq but delayed in Afghanistan) are essential.

But the fact that this level of care in the field and nearby is available makes it less likely that bunions and headaches need to be sent on an 18 hour flight for short-term outpatient treatment.

After looking at everything I've seen so far, I'm leaning towards the idea that the fudged numbers are there alright - but that they are covering up something less sinister than 7,000 dead troops we haven't heard about. I suspect they're fudging the number of psychiatric wounded - for PR reasons. Americans have a good appreciation for how devastating PTSD can be after their experience with Vietnam veterans and other survivors of traumatic life events. And the military may want to keep the number of new PTSD cases to a minimum - at least as far as the official record goes. Which means these people have to be admitted for something. If I was given the task of admitting them for something other than what they were really admitted for it wouldn't be too difficult to go through a review of systems and find out they suffer from headaches and backaches (which can both be symptoms of depression and consequently of PTSD) and then list that as their reason for admission. But I can assure you that people are not really being admitted to Landstuhl for "headaches and backaches and bunions."

This post has been edited by Gabrielle: Jul 4 2005, 09:10 PM

[Marine]

Ragin’ Cajun enlists with GED, goes after master’s degree
Submitted by: 2nd Marine Aircraft Wing
Story Identification #: 20057411718
Story by Sgt. Juan Vara



AL ASAD, Iraq (July 4, 2005) -- In January 1996, a young man from New Orleans enlisted in the Marine Corps without a high school diploma. Less than six years later he had a college degree and was a second lieutenant. He wasn’t done.

Taking advantage of the opportunities service members have to continue their education, 1st Lt. Jeremy A. Robinson traded his stripes and crossed rifles for gold bars almost four years ago. It wasn’t easy, but his hard work and perseverance paid off and have changed his life in ways he never imagined.

In 1994, when his mother was diagnosed with cancer, Robinson dropped out of high school and took up several jobs to sustain the family. Interested in bettering himself, he got a General Education Development certificate from the state of Louisiana and attended Delgado Community College for a year. In January 1996 he enlisted in the Marine Corps.

Upon completion of basic training at Marine Corps Recruit Depot, Parris Island, S.C., he was meritoriously promoted to private first class. He later completed Marine Combat Training, a course on basic infantry skills, where he was meritoriously promoted to lance corporal.

After becoming an aviation maintenance administrative clerk, Robinson traveled to Okinawa, Japan, and reported to Marine Medium Helicopter Squadron 265. While serving with HMM-265, without even one year in the Corps, he was promoted to corporal.

To learn more about the aircraft for which he was maintaining records, he began flying as an aerial observer on CH-46E Sea Knights. He accumulated approximately 100 flight-hours before his return to the United States.

His second unit was Marine Aviation Training Support Group 21, in Naval Air Station, Pensacola, Fla., where he served as an operations clerk. On his off time, mostly at night, he attended Pensacola Junior College.

The operations officer in the unit, a prior-enlisted Marine who had reached the rank of gunnery sergeant before becoming a warrant officer and moving up to the rank of lieutenant colonel, noticed Robinson’s interest in education.

“He noticed I was taking classes at night and knocking out my homework at lunch time and counseled me about putting in a package for [the Meritorious Enlisted Commissioning Education Program],” said Robinson.

Robinson, hungry for more knowledge, followed the advice and was one of approximately 50 corporals to get selected for the program. Prior to leaving the unit, in less than four years of service, he was promoted to sergeant.

Auburn University welcomed Robinson in 1999. In August 2001 he received a bachelor’s degree in criminal justice and was commissioned a second lieutenant.

After completing aviation maintenance officers’ school he joined Marine Aviation Logistics Squadron 26, based at Marine Corps Air Station, New River, N.C., and served as the airframes division officer.

In November 2003 he joined his current unit, Marine Medium Helicopter Squadron 264, as the maintenance material control officer. Juggling the workload of a unit that has been constantly deploying in support of Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom, he continued working on the aerial observer syllabus and received the aircrew wing insignia on April 1.

“That was a great feeling,” he said. “Finally finishing what I started and receiving my wings nine years later, as an officer.”

In Iraq since earlier this year, Robinson has raked up approximately 100 flight-hours with about 80 of those being in combat missions. He now wears the combat aircrew wing insignia, a device that recognizes the job done by aircrew personnel in combat.

“Flying is great,” he said. “I missed it. I got all caught up with my training but by flying here I feel like I contributed to the entire effort.”

Robinson, recently selected for promotion to captain, is scheduled to return to the U.S. and report to MALS-42 in Marietta, Ga. Not completely done with his education goals, he plans to attend law school at Georgia State University for his master’s degree.

“Why get out of the Marine Corps and go to school when you can take advantage of the programs the Marine Corps offers,” said Robinson. “[The Meritorious Enlisted Commissioning Education Program] is a great opportunity for Marines who have some college background and are looking to enhance their professional development while still wearing the uniform. The Marine Corps opened the door for me, but MECEP changed my life forever.”


- For more information about the Marine reported on in this story, please contact Sgt. Juan Vara by e-mail at varaj@acemnf-wiraq.usmc.mil -

[ghostgovt]

This article below, dated over a year ago, supports the growing numbers in soldiers desperation for getting out of BushCo's lie war for profits. I imagine the numbers that represents desertions today are much higher than we may imagine.



http://www.pww.org/article/articleview/5372/1/220


Soldiers say ‘I’m not going back’


Susan Webb
People's Weekly World Newspaper, 06/19/04


These days, GI rights counseling coordinator Bill Galvin is getting at least four or five calls a day from soldiers saying, “I’ve gotten orders to go to Iraq and I don’t want to go.” In the last few weeks, Galvin has seen a marked increase in the calls to his section of the GI Rights Hotline, at the Center for Conscience and War in Washington, D.C. Many are from people who have already served in Iraq and Afghanistan. “The things they have witnessed and experienced – they don’t want to do it again,” and many question the entire war policy, he told the World in a recent phone interview. People who are being sent back are saying, “Uh-uh, I’m not going.”

Galvin said his office, which handles about 10 percent of the national GI Rights Hotline calls, currently has 30 to 40 conscientious objector applicant cases pending. That doesn’t count people who requested information, or those who “find some other way out,” including going AWOL, Galvin said.

Nationally, the hotline has been getting an average of 3,000 calls a month so far this year, up from a 2,400 monthly average last year, according to GI Rights Program Coordinator Teresa Panepinto, at the Central Committee of Conscientious Objectors, based in the Bay Area.

Lenore Yarger, a GI rights counselor at Quaker House in Fayetteville, N.C., says this January her office had the largest call volume since the hotline started in 1995 – 220 calls in which counselors actually talked to people. That does not count messages for which no direct contact was made. The numbers have continued high since then, ranging from 150 to over 200 a month that “we actually talk to,” she told the World. “The highest levels are becoming more and more normal.” The callers want to know how they can get discharged from the military. Increasingly they are asking about medical and psychiatric discharges, she said. Her office is currently working with seven or eight conscientious objector applicants.

Redeployment orders are taking a tremendous toll on people, Yarger said. They may have already served in Afghanistan, then been sent to Iraq, then are being sent back again, with four months or less between. “These are people returning from combat, not liking what they’ve seen, and not wanting to go back,” she said. “What we see increasingly is, they don’t like what they’ve been asked to do and don’t want to continue.”

“It’s not just Abu Ghraib,” she added. “They’re seeing civilians and children killed. It really bothers them.” Post-traumatic stress syndrome is a growing issue, she said.

Vietnam veteran Barry Romo says his organization, Vietnam Veterans Against the War, is getting “numerous” calls and e-mails from troops asking about everything from conscientious objector status to medical discharges. A major refrain, he says, is “I don’t want to go back on a second tour.”

Army units that completed a year in combat are now being sent back for more. One Pennsylvania unit that had its Iraq deployment renewed has now served there more than 500 days straight, Romo noted. Another unit served a year in Afghanistan, came home, then 90 days later was sent to Iraq. Earlier this month the Pentagon ordered that soldiers whose service is about to end cannot leave if their units are ordered to go to Iraq or Afghanistan. Under this “stop loss” order, these soldiers will have to remain through the deployment, which could be another year or more, and up to three months after they return. An earlier “stop loss” order issued last fall applied to troops already serving in Iraq.

“It’s absolutely immoral,” Romo told the World. During the Vietnam War, people served their one year and it was over, he said. “Now, they’re facing never-ending war.” The latest stop loss order affects 40,000 people who should be able to retire or be released, he said. Instead, they are being held against their will.

Addressing President Bush, Romo asked angrily, “You keep talking about how patriotic the troops are. Why aren’t you saying there will be no back-to-back tours, no extended tours, no second tours?”

Even 30-year-plus Army “lifers” are complaining, Romo said. The e-mails he is seeing are upset about “everything from ‘war is wrong,’ to ‘I don’t want to kill people,’ to ‘I spent my time over there and I don’t want to go back.’”

[ghostgovt]

gg,

I find the notion that they're transporting soldiers 18 hours to Landstuhl for bunions incredible. First of all 9 out of 10 bunions occur in females.  Secondly, they're usually managed successfully without operation.  Below is a general run down of how soldiers are triaged in Iraq. I see no reason why anything from bunions, backaches, asthma, and even appendicitis can't be managed in a Level 3 field hospital.  They've got surgeons andICU packs and all kinds of operating equipment there.  It seems in someone with appendicitis, especially, you wouldn't want to transfer them 18 hours to receive treatment if you have a surgeon right in front of  you.  In that 18 hours the appendix could rupture.

After looking at everything I've seen so far, I'm leaning towards the idea that the fudged numbers are there alright - but that they are covering up something less sinister than 7,000 dead troops we haven't heard about.  I suspect they're fudging the number of psychiatric wounded - for PR reasons.  Americans have a good appreciation for how devastating PTSD can be after their experience with Vietnam veterans and other survivors of traumatic life events.  And the military may want to keep the number of new PTSD cases to a minimum - at least as far as the official record goes.  Which means these people have to be admitted for something.  If I was given the task of admitting them for something other than what they were really admitted for it wouldn't be too difficult to go through a review of systems and find out they suffer from headaches and backaches (which can both be symptoms of depression and consequently of PTSD) and then list that as their reason for admission.  But I can assure you that people are not really being admitted to Landstuhl for "headaches and backaches and bunions."

Gabrielle, I am 100% with you there. There's just more to this story than what is being reported. Your medical expertise makes a lot of sense to me. Even in 'Nam, we had many soldiers suffering from serious abdominal mortar hits that were taken care of back at Battalion HG and with a good 50/50 chance of survival. The main killer in the field was bleeding to death and the high rate of infection especially due to the extreme heat (besides instant death due to bullits and explosions). I'm sure the very same exists in Iraq (just without the jungle humidity). If a soldier was patched up 'quick' enough in the field his survival rate was pretty good. These cases of hang nails and bad backs in these sorts of numbers (counts) in this German Hospital(s) is ridiculous, and from the Army that I remember, they did not cater to making a soldier's life comfy at all. Hell we has a few guys who had lost their minds and we still kept them in camp for many weeks.... simply holding onto them (by their fatigues) as to keep them from drifting out of camp. The Army did not let folks go home on emergency leaves (mine was refused) nor was their any shuttle that I knew of that immediately shipped us to a better place because of jungle crotch rot or blisters on the feet. We lived with it!

Another thot. If we have ooooo 15,000 + soldiers in Germany with hang nails and mental problems, I also think that such stories would be coming out by parents who are speaking out against this lie war. Would there not be some outrage about how many offsprings there are held in Germany that have become mentally ill like this because of what this Iraq War did to them on top of also being 'held' in Germany when they probably should be home in VA hospitals here? Maybe this is the case and many (Iraq vets) are shuttled into VAs here under a quiet cover, but I have yet to hear anything about it. That's hard for me to imagine that parents would not be screaming their heads off because of what has happened to their offspring in this short amount of time if so many of them are becoming Section 8s.

In my opinion I think many serious (near death) soldiers are shipped to Germany and possibly 20-50% of them are dying there and we truly may have this 'hidden' count not being made public like it should which is damage control via BushCo propaganda.

[ghostgovt]

In this article below, most figures are pretty much the same as discussed in this thread pertaining to the transported injured and suspected total counts to this German Hospital. Several added observations are made by Mark Benjamin, with one statement inside the [].

http://www.refusingtokill.net/USGulfWar2/w...scasualties.htm

Washington conceals US casualties in Iraq

World Socialist Website

By David Walsh
4 February 2004


The Bush administration is deliberately concealing from the American people the number and condition of US military personnel who have been wounded in Iraq. The efforts by those few politicians and media figures who have pursued the issue make this clear.

[Mark Benjamin of United Press International (UPI) has been one of the more assiduous in pursuing an accurate total of the number medically evacuated from Iraq. On December 19, Benjamin reported that in response to a request from UPI the Pentagon had provided a figure of nearly 11,000 US wounded and medical evacuations - 2,273 wounded and 8,581 medical evacuations.]



The deliberate obscuring of the human toll of the war and occupation in Iraq is an indication of considerable nervousness within the Bush administration. Despite the official claims of overwhelming popular support, the political and media establishment knows full well that opposition to this war is growing, and that an accurate picture of the wars devastating consequences would further turn the tide of public opinion.

This post has been edited by ghostgovt: Jul 5 2005, 03:40 PM

[flydangler]

I find the notion that they're transporting soldiers 18 hours to Landstuhl for bunions incredible. First of all 9 out of 10 bunions occur in females.  Secondly, they're usually managed successfully without operation.  Below is a general run down of how soldiers are triaged in Iraq. I see no reason why anything from bunions, backaches, asthma, and even appendicitis can't be managed in a Level 3 field hospital.  They've got surgeons andICU packs and all kinds of operating equipment there.  It seems in someone with appendicitis, especially, you wouldn't want to transfer them 18 hours to receive treatment if you have a surgeon right in front of  you.  In that 18 hours the appendix could rupture.

First of all methinks 18 hours in the air is a gross exaggeration, eh? I'd be surprised if 'twas even half that. Even buckin' the jet stream 18 hour flights would cover maybe 8,000 miles, and Germany ain't that far away.

Methinks anybody not fit for full duty and not anticipated to return to full duty in the very near future are transferred outa theater IOT let theater medical assets concentrate on their primary function, combat trauma. 'Twould seem even post-op appy's would fall into this category, eh? At least 'twas my experience. 'Tain't as simplistic as you describe or devious as you suspect methinks.

Landstuhl ain't the only place they're sendin' medevacs. Naval Hospitals Naples and Rota are gettin' quite a few too, with Naples I believe the primary facility for NeuroPsych and cardio-vascular disease cases and Rota gettin' most internal med and tropical disease cases.

So, it seems to make sense that anyone transferred to a Level 4 (ie Landstuhl) facility has got something major going on.  I suspect most of these "appendicitis, bunions, and backaches" are really undeclared traumas or perhaps more likely, they are undeclared psychiatric patients suffering from PTSD that are no longer able to function in the theater.  I can see why the Pentagon would have a difficult time fessing up to either of these two scenarios.

'Twould seem you're exhibiting an incomplete understanding of military medicine, and methinks reading into what you learn somethin' that really ain't there. From what I've heard from family and acquaintances still serving 'tis an entirely different story.

'Twould seem there've been plenty of articles 'bout how, for the first time ever, mental health personnel assets are bein' made available throughout the theater of operations, includin' the front lines. Methinks this has probably helped nip many PTSD and related problems with early intervention, thus lessening the severity and reducing chronic problems.

I've heard they've so depleted stateside military mental health capability by sending these assets overseas that civilian contractors are now being used here to make up for it. 'Twould seem military medicine vastly changed mental health intervention for these two conflicts, combatants now recognize and accept that early identification and treatment of these problems is necessary, and the stigma of seein' the shrink has been greatly reduced.

After looking at everything I've seen so far, I'm leaning towards the idea that the fudged numbers are there alright - but that they are covering up something less sinister than 7,000 dead troops we haven't heard about.

Do you really believe the military would risk losing accreditation of its teaching hospitals by "fudging" these numbers? Even overseas military medical facilities must undergo periodic examination by JCHS to stay accredited, eh?

Morbidity reportin' must be done under stringent ICD standards and is constantly reviewed by outside sources. Even WHO gets involved in some areas, like tropical medicine review.

IMHO you're readin' too much into rumors and conjecture, but if it makes you feel better.........

[Gabrielle]

Washington conceals US casualties in Iraq

David Walsh – wsws.org February 4, 2004

The Bush administration is deliberately concealing from the American people the number and condition of US military personnel who have been wounded in Iraq. The efforts by those few politicians and media figures who have pursued the issue make this clear.

Estimates on the number of US soldiers, sailors and Marines medically evacuated from Iraq by the end of 2003 because of battlefield wounds, illness or other reasons range from 11,000 to 22,000, a staggering figure by any standard. Thousands of these young men and women have been physically or psychologically damaged for life, in turn affecting the lives of tens of thousands of family members and others. And the war in Iraq is less than one year old.

A recent piece by Daniel Zwerdling on National Public Radio (January 7) highlighted some of the difficulties in establishing the truth about US casualties. Zwerdling began by noting that few Americans seemed aware of the large number of US wounded in Iraq. He questioned a few dozen people on the street about the total number of American soldiers who had died in Iraq, and most answered more or less correctly. However, when the NPR correspondent asked about the number of US military personnel who have had to be evacuated with wounds, no one was close to the actual figure. The answers ranged from a few hundred to a thousand.

Zwerdling set about finding the actual number by contacting the appropriate government and military offices. A spokesman for Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld told him to call US Central Command in Tampa, Florida. A spokesman there informed him that only Rumsfeld’s office had such information. A spokesman for the Army provided with him the number of its personnel wounded seriously enough to be evacuated out of Iraq by the end of 2003—8,848—but he had no figures on Marines, Navy Seals or other forces. The United States Medical Command told Zwerdling they were still searching for the numbers.

Zwerdling contacted Sen. Chuck Hagel (Republican-Nebraska), a Vietnam veteran and former deputy administrator of the Veterans Administration. Hagel explained that he had been trying to obtain certain information from Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, including the “total number of American battlefield casualties in Afghanistan and Iraq. What is the official Pentagon definition of wounded in action? What is the procedure for releasing this information in a timely way to the public and the criteria for awarding a Purple Heart [awarded to those wounded in combat or posthumously to the next of kin of those killed or those who die of wounds received in action]?”

The Nebraska senator also wanted an updated tally on the number of US military personnel who had received Purple Hearts and the dates they were awarded. Six weeks later, Hagel received the provocative reply: the Department of Defense did not have the requested information.

The information on the number of Purple Hearts awarded is significant because it speaks to the total number of battlefield casualties.

In December, Mississippi Democratic congressman Gene Taylor raised the possibility that the Pentagon was deliberately undercounting combat casualties when he brought to light the case of five members of the Mississippi National Guard who were wounded in a booby-trap bomb explosion, but whose injuries were listed as “noncombat” by the military. The truth emerged only because Taylor happened to speak to the most seriously injured of the five at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington. Taylor indicated that he would send a memo to the other members of Congress “and ask if anyone has had a similar incident.”

Other commentators have noted the discrepancy between the number of wounded in combat listed by the military and the large number of service personnel medically evacuated from Iraq, an action, one would imagine, that the military does not encourage or take lightly. In passing, for example, an article in the November 5 European edition of Stars and Stripes noted that the Landstuhl military hospital in Germany had “treated more than 7,000 injured and ill servicemembers from Iraq.” At that time, the military had recorded some 2,000 combat casualties.

The Landstuhl facility, located near the huge Ramstein US airbase, reported January 23 that the total of US medical evacuations from Iraq to Germany by the end of 2003 was 9,433. The number of hostile and “non-hostile” wounded by that point listed by the Army was approximately 2,750.

Julian Borger in the Guardian last August noted the odd imbalance between combat and “non-combat” deaths and injuries. He cited the comments of Lieut. Col. Allen DeLane, in charge of airlifting the wounded into Andrews air force base near Washington, who had already seen thousands of wounded flown in and who told National Public Radio, according to Bolger, “90 percent of injuries were directly war-related.”


US casualties mount

As casualties mounted last summer, US military officials did their best to suppress any discussion of the wounded total in particular. Only on July 10, almost four months after the launch of the invasion, CNN reported that for “the first time since the start of the war in Iraq, Pentagon officials have released the number of US troops wounded from the beginning of the war through Wednesday [July 9].”

In keeping the number of wounded from the public, the military high command was aided by the American media. Editor & Publisher Online observed in July that while deaths in combat were being reported, the many non-combat deaths were virtually ignored and the numbers of wounded, in and out of battle, were being under-reported. Questioned by E & P Online, Philip Bennett, Washington Post assistant managing editor of the foreign desk, acknowledged blandly that “There could be some inattention to [the number of injured troops].”

The sharp increase in the number of US wounded in the autumn—the official number of combat wounded alone averaged nearly 100 a week between mid-September and mid-November (lunaville.org)—made the reluctance of the military to provide figures increasingly problematic. Even the servile US media was beginning to request figures. Still the Pentagon officialdom put up as much resistance as it could.

In September 2003, the Post itself noted, “Although Central Command keeps a running total of the wounded, it releases the number only when asked—making the combat injuries of US troops in Iraq one of the untold stories in the war.”

Sen. Bob Graham of Florida, one-time candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination and ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, declared around the same time that he wanted to know how many US soldiers had been wounded in Iraq, but had been unable to find out because the administration would not release the information.

An article in the October 13 New Republic by Lawrence F. Kaplan noted: “Pentagon officials have rebuked public affairs officers who release casualty figures, and, until recently, US Central Command did not regularly publicize the injured total either.” Ten days later, however, E & P Online commented, “Current injury statistics were easily obtained...through US Central Command and the Pentagon, so getting the numbers is no longer a problem.”

In that same New Republic piece, Kaplan discussed the state of many injured soldiers at Walter Reed Army Medical Center. He pointed out that modern medical technique meant that a far higher percentage of wounded soldiers now survived who would have died in previous wars. The use of Kevlar body armor had also reduced deaths. The result, however, was that many of the wounded were left with debilitating injuries, particularly amputated limbs. Because of the higher survival rate, information about the seriously wounded is essential to any accurate picture of the Iraq war.

Kaplan wrote: “The near-invisibility of the wounded has several sources. 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.”

The number of “combat injuries,” however, is far from the whole story. That leaves out the thousands who have become physically or mentally ill in Iraq. As noted above, estimates of the real number of US servicemen and women evacuated from Iraq by the end of 2003 vary widely.

The British Observer newspaper asserted September 14 that the “true scale of American casualties in Iraq is revealed today by new figures...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.”

By the end of November, Roger Roy in the Orlando Sentinel could place the number of those “killed, wounded, injured or...ill enough to require evacuation from Iraq” at approximately 10,000. Roy noted that such figures were hard to track, “leading critics to accuse the military of underreporting casualty numbers.”

Mark Benjamin of United Press International (UPI) has been one of the more assiduous in pursuing an accurate total of the number medically evacuated from Iraq. On December 19, Benjamin reported that in response to a request from UPI the Pentagon had provided a figure of nearly 11,000 US wounded and medical evacuations—2,273 wounded and 8,581 medical evacuations.

Benjamin cited the comments of Aseneth Blackwell, former president of the Gold Star Wives of America, a support group for people who lose a spouse in war, who said the country had not seen such a total since Vietnam. “It is staggering,” she added.

Benjamin pointed out that the Pentagon’s official casualty update as of December 17 reported only 364 soldiers as “non-hostile wounded.”

The largest estimate of the number of medical evacuations from Iraq is to be found in a December 30 article by retired US Army Col. David Hackworth, “Saddam’s in the slammer, so why are we on orange?”

Hackworth writes, “Even I...was staggered when a Pentagon source gave me a copy of a Nov. 30 dispatch showing that since George W. Bush unleashed the dogs of war, our armed forces have taken 14,000 casualties in Iraq—about the number of warriors in a line tank division.” The former colonel adds that the figure “means we’ve lost the equivalent of a fighting division since March. At least 10 percent of the total number” of available personnel—135,000—“has been evacuated back to the USA!”

Lt. Col. Scott D. Ross of the US military’s Transportation Command told Hackworth that as of Christmas his “outfit had evacuated 3,255 battle-injured casualties and 18,717 non-battle injuries,” a total 21,972 servicemen and women. Ross, however, cautioned that his figure might include some of the same service members counted more than once.

The major categories of “non-battle” evacuations included orthopedic surgery, 3,907; general surgery, 1,995; internal medicine, 1,291; psychiatric, 1,167; neurology, 1,002; gynecological (mostly pregnancy-related), 491.

Hackworth concludes that “it’s safe to say that, so far, somewhere between 14,000 and 22,000 soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines have been medically evacuated” from the war zone in Iraq.

”Treated like dogs”

Once back in the US, the injured are stored in dozens of military medical facilities around the country, their existence virtually ignored by the administration, their plight largely unreported by the media.

Until a public outcry improved matters, many wounded veterans, UPI reported in October, had to wait “weeks and months for proper medical help” at military facilities such as Fort Stewart in Georgia and were “being treated like dogs,” according to one officer. The indifference of Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld to the fate of US servicemen and women is a part of their general contempt for the broad layers of the working population, Iraqi and American.

The deliberate obscuring of the human toll of the war and occupation in Iraq is an indication of considerable nervousness within the Bush administration. Despite the official claims of overwhelming popular support, the political and media establishment knows full well that opposition to this war is growing, and that an accurate picture of the war’s devastating consequences would further turn the tide of public opinion.

This post has been edited by Gabrielle: Jul 5 2005, 08:46 PM

[Gabrielle]

Lessons of Vietnam

If the US government is willing to lie about weapons of mass destruction, uranium from Niger, and a series of faked incidents in Iraq, why wouldn't they also lie about US casualties? What are the true casualty figures? Is it just slightly more than one thousand dead American soldiers, as reported, or is it two thousand, five thousand or even ten thousand? People argue that such casualties could not possibly be hidden. Why not? No one can see anymore the number of coffins coming home, as they have prohibited the media from covering it, saying that it is too distressing to military families. The United States is a large country with a widely scattered population. Unless all military families got together and compared their experiences, no one could check on true casualty figures.