This issue may just be a pimple on the butt of a much bigger issue, but it infuriates me to see this kind of garbage.

Is the Pentagon trying to “sanitize” casualty statistics in order not to offend people’s sensibilities?? Is this a way of minimizing the issue of the many, many Iraq veterans whose lives have been forever changed by injuries suffered in this never-ending conflict?

In a week where Bush is asking for another $245 billion for his war, where is the money to take care of the tens of thousands of severely injured veterans we already have?

There is an unprecedented statistic that the Pentagon can’t put a happy face on – for every fatality suffered in Iraq, there are 16 injuries. In Vietnam, fewer than 3 were wounded for every death. That means a LOT of veterans are coming home with grievous injuries.

The VA underestimated both the number of soldiers affected, and the cost of caring for them. Waiting times can run into several months for a veteran to see a doctor. In cases of severe PTSD, that wait can sometimes be deadly.

Is the Pentagon trying to “sanitize” casualty statistics? Why or why not?

Should government refocus its “support our troops” efforts on supporting those soldiers who have already served, and not so much on extending the conflict?

Should the government act to expedite the claims of the nearly half a million soldiers seeking their well-deserved veteran’s benefits?

What is the solution for the underfunded VA?

The usual bias – and misleading statistics. First of all not all the injuries are serious. Second the reason we have so many more wounded is that the rapid and efficient care given our men saves they lives. You cannot put a happy face on anything but the reality is far fewer are dying in Iraq then in WWII or Vietnam. In Vietnam, after 4 years nearly 50,000 Americans were dead (that’s 16 times Iraq). And in just one 36 day battle in the Pacific we lost more Marines then in Iraq to date by far.

U.S. Marine Corps statistics show 6,821 dead and 19,217 wounded on Iwo Jima in 36 days.
http://www.johnmyers.com/iwojima.html

The VA has been, like most government run enterprises, not great for decades. IMO they are better today then in the 90s - http://www.ushospital.info/Military.htm

Um, Ted? That's kind of the point. Soldiers who would have died in Vietnam or WWII are living because of advances in medical care. And those kinds of injuries tend to be severe. And those soldiers are the ones who will need the most care when they come home. So, of the 16 injured to every one death, say even 1/3 of those injuries are serious; that's still a lot of severely disabled soldiers.

Is the Pentagon trying to “sanitize” casualty statistics? Why or why not?
I don't see why they would even attempt to. There is no possible way that a death or wounded soldier can be hidden from the public in this day and age.
From your own link, the NYT:
The old method lumped many problems under the label “casualties,” including illnesses, minor injuries and injuries from accidents, as well as wounds sustained in combat. But the public may assume that every casualty is a war wound, Dr. Kilpatrick said, so the site was changed to avoid misunderstandings.

I don't see a problem with this.

Should government refocus its “support our troops” efforts on supporting those soldiers who have already served, and not so much on extending the conflict?
There is no reason why the government can't do both. It also depends on what you mean by support, medical or other......I know of soldiers who have recieved outstanding care after being wounded, and I know those who have gotten the royal run around. Is it any different from civilian care? The DoD provides outstanding programs for retiring soldiers and those who leave when their enlistment is up, such as the Army Career and Alumni Program (ACAP). The VA has had it's share of problems lately, but after three decades of not having to deal with numerous war related casualties, I can see where they had become complacent.

Should the government act to expedite the claims of the nearly half a million soldiers seeking their well-deserved veteran’s benefits?
I can't yell YES loud enough!!

What is the solution for the underfunded VA?
Beyond introducing smart and compassionate management, I don't have an answer at my finger tips.

I doubt it is 1/3 “severely disabled”. Do you have a stat? The very fact that they get such good and fast care on the scene IMO allows many to not suffer severe injuries.

Ninety Percent Of U.S. Wounded Survive: In Iraq, Firepower Increases, Deaths Decrease
Science Daily — Better, faster medical care has reduced deaths from the more than 10,000 war injuries in Iraq and Afghanistan to the lowest percentage of any war in American history. In World War II, 30 percent of U.S. soldiers died from wounds received in combat; in Vietnam, 24 percent of the wounded died. In Iraq and Afghanistan, despite the horrific increase in the destructibility of weapons, mortality has dropped to 10 percent.

What is the solution for the underfunded VA?

This IMO is what socialized medicine would be like. Inefficient, under funded and badly managed. IMO the solution is to scrap VA and cover the vets at regular hospitals (with the funding the VA got). They would get better, quicker, and more modern care.

Actually, in Vietnam after 4 years (65, 66, 67, 68) there were fewer than 30,000 US dead. And that's being generous and assuming the war started in 1965 and not earlier.

Furthermore, It is true that, in 1968 for example, the US suffered 14,594 deaths. However at the time there were 409,111 US troops in Vietnam, almost 4x the number on the ground in Iraq. So in relative numbers, your 16x, which dropped down to 10x when you get the numbers right, now drops in relative terms to 2.5x as many dead.

So relative to the number of troops on the ground, there are 2.5 times as many dead in Iraq as at the same time in Vietnam, not 16x. Not the same, but certainly comparable.

The real “war” started later as in 1967 and the number of troops is not that important since we had more of them in the “rear”. In any case by early 1970 we were over 50,000 dead and over the next 2 years we will not hit 5,000 dead in Iraq IMO. So 10X plus is more accurate.

Actually, percentage of combat to support troops in Vietnam was only slightly higher then in Iraq, and as there are 4x the number of troops deployed, obviously that makes a difference. Thus the 2.5X.

Not, of course, that any of this matters. Comparing absolute numbers is irrelevant: comparing trends and methodologies and progression of tactics and impact on the enemy does. That is why most everyone likens Iraq to Vietnam: a war against a well entrenched insurgency with external material support and reasonable to high support on the ground, constant growth in effectiveness and numbers of the Insurgency and no tangible signs of progress. The insurgency is winning, and it continues to win. Weither the war will end in a Vietnam style withdrawal, or something more phased and organised is really the only question that remains.

Why, no, Ted, I don’t, because the Pentagon has decided to lump everyone together. Hello?

Ted, does that mean the 1,864 soldiers who died from 1961 to 1965 aren’t “real” casualties?

Sure, the years you mention represent the peak of the US’ military involvement, but the US military was present in Vietnam as early as 1956, and there were Americans wounded in attacks as early as 1957.


(emphasis mine)

Is the Pentagon trying to “sanitize” casualty statistics? Why or why not?

There are two ways to look at the statistics: as an absolute number and as a relative number. As an absolute number, reclassifying the statistics to reflect what people "expect" casualties to involve may be useful. As a relative number, it is very misleading. If casualties are not classified in the same way between recent conflicts (say, Vietnam), then you cannot get a good read when comparing the casualty rates between those conflicts.

Personally, I think they should release numbers in more buckets. That is: deaths, severely wounded (amputation, debilitating PTSD) and lightly wounded. I doubt Pentagon has reclassified the wounded in an attempt sanitize the numbers, but if the numbers go down as a result, then, hey, all the better.

Should government refocus its “support our troops” efforts on supporting those soldiers who have already served, and not so much on extending the conflict?

I agree with DTOM on this. These aren't mutually exclusive.

Should the government act to expedite the claims of the nearly half a million soldiers seeking their well-deserved veteran’s benefits?

Umm...yes.

What is the solution for the underfunded VA?

I'm surprised that Republicans haven't suggested this yet... privatization. Why not have private health care providers administer our veterans? Do away with the VA completely.

That is why most everyone likens Iraq to Vietnam: a war against a well entrenched insurgency with external material support and reasonable to high support on the ground, constant growth in effectiveness and numbers of the Insurgency and no tangible signs of progress. The insurgency is winning


For someone who claims to be a war history expert you have some interesting perspectives V. The insurgency in Vietnam did not beat us the North Vietnamese army did, with the help of the insurgents. The only parallel here is that governments like Iran and Syria are helping the insurgents in Iraq.

In Vietnam we never controlled the north, people or production capability. Most of the time idiot LBJ would not even let our forces bomb the north or try to interdict the massive supplies coming in from China and Russia. Where is the parallel in Iraq? The situation in Iraq is far different. Where is the Ho Chi Mihn trail, the 10s of thousands coming from elsewhere? Iraq has a sectarian conflict that needs to be crushed. And yes we should have done it sooner.

The ad hominum was unnecessary.

So, to be clear, according to you in order for there to be any comparative relation between Iraq and Vietnam, the two situations have to be exactly identical? Vietnam is a long thin country going North-South, and Iraq is not, so i guess one cannot compare the two situations?

There is enormous room for comparason between these two wars, it is in fact a closer match than any other war the US has ever fought. No there is no Ho Chi Mihn trail in Iraq. So what?

This is an occupied state in which the foreign power is being fought be an insurgency (or, more accurately, insurgencies) on the goung with popular support and limited foreign support. The Occupying power lacks the troops to manage an actual national occupation, and has shown a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of the insurgency. the initial deployment and mission objectives were terirbly done and as a result the insurgency grows in strength and influence, even to the point of heavily influencing domestic politicians. Support of the occupation has faded both in the country and at home, due to the empty promises of an easy victory and obviously faulty promises of massive local support for the troops. The government of the occupied country is corrupt and inefficient with little control over its own military, a military which is infiltrated at all levels by the insurgents. rare but highly publicised military excesses and atrocities by the occupying power have worsened the situation, yet despite ALL the evidence that it cannot help, the occupying government has decided to escalate the conflict.

Now which war am I talking about, Iraq or Vietnam?

Pretending there is no massive comparative link between the wars because there is no 'Ho chi Mihn trail' is just silly.

As I said in the Vietnam conflict we were trying to support the South against another country, governed by a communist government, with an independent and large standing army (and a good one at that), supported by major manufacturing capability and ally COUNTRIES that supplied massive war aid and arms. We never occupied the north and never stopped the arms flow or the invasion by 10s of thousands of regular highly trained units from the north.

In Iraq we face what could be compared to the Vietcong(But with no North Vietnamese Army support)

. They are insurgents and guerillas and are supported by Iran, Syria, and AQ informally. There is no opposing military structure in another country funneling 10s of thousands of troops and millions of tons of supplies into Iraq. There is Iran bringing in triggers for existing dumb bombs and there are Sunni insurgents aided by AQ.

So the parallels are not even close. The comparison is completely political and does not apply.

That is absurd. Of course the paralells are close, they are exact. The exact nature of the external support for the local insurgency is irrelevant. The nature, response to, support for, effect of and development of the insurgency are the same. Its course over the last few years the ineffectiveness of the Americans in the face of its growing strength and co-ordination, the nature of the local government, are are compellingly exact. You cannot possibly deny those facts, so you cannot possibly deny the enormous similarities.

I laid this all out in detail in my last post, if you care to address any of it, we can talk. failing that your attempts to pretend there is no basis simply because there are factual differences between the two wars is irrelevant.

I fail to see how a bunch of locally supported “insurgents” compares to the North Vietnamese army and their huge sophisticated allies and enormous production capability but apparently that matters little to.

We disagree – end of story

No, but perhaps you have heard of a little thing called the Viet Cong? A local insurgency backed by the people that grew stronger and stronger year to year despite the escalation of the Americans?



Apparently so. let may I add just one more thing?

You say (bafflingly) you see NO comparason between Iraq and Vietnam, and any comparative is entirely political. OK, so be it.

Yet you (and other war supporters) seem to have no problem bringing up comparative statements regarding WWII, a war with which there literally is no comparative whatsoever. I suppose it's only 'political' when OTHER people do it?

I do not mean NO comparison but little. We fight “insurgents” that are as I said like the Vietcong except there is no army, allies, factories. Etc behind them.

When I make reference to WWII it is in regard to specific things like armor for vehicles.

All right, all you conservatives who claim to hold military troops in such high regard, defend this.


The reporters who visited and reported on the deteriorating conditions at Walter Reed interviewed patients who were afraid to give their real names; for fear of retribution by THE ARMY! This is the kind of edit that really gets my goat. All that rah-rah “support our brave troops” as they go into battle just freakin’ disappears when they come home beaten, battered and grievously wounded. You can bet this week’s paycheck that President Bush hasn’t bothered to funnel any of that “war chest” money on over to Walter Reed.

And THIS is the Army’s “top medical facility”. Words fail me.

At least some people get it.



Edited to remove attempt at bypassing profanity filter - Jaime

Obviously Walter Reed is more than you describe. http://www.wramc.amedd.army.mil/

I know that the NEED is there to blame Bush for EVERY problem in the massive bureaucracy of the government but you may have to admit that he did not create them all or preside over them all. One wonders why CONGRESS that allocates all the MONEY never replaced Walter Reed. Why are the Murtha and others “earmarks” more important than our wounded?

And before you tell me it was republicans in charge for 7 years - Show me bills the Dems introduced in the past 7 years to do ANYTHING about this or any other politically motivated red herring that I am sure we will hear about in the next 2 years.

This is certainly "cheap political points" - as you say

Actually I don't believe DaffyGrl blamed Bush jr for this in her post, in fact it was directed at 'conservatives'. Nor do I for one think it is reasonable to Blame Bush personally in this case, for something so far down the chain of command.



How is that in any way relevant? The Republicans were in charge, and this was their responsibility. Are you trying to defend this by saying the party out of power didn't do anything anyways? EVEN IF that were true, it still in no way exculpates the responsability of the party which held both houses and the presidency.




I do not wish to speak for DaffyGrl, as that is rude, but I believe this is NOT called 'cheap political points' and is in fact called 'accountability'. I do not know who is to blame for this fiasco, it is certain the decisions that led to this were taken much further down the food chain than the president. But given the promises of the party in power to prevent and adoid just such an event, and given the centering of one of their main slogans on providing for the military and being the party of military patriotism, it should at the very least raise some interesting questions.

I was pretty outraged and PO'd when I posted that, and for that I apologize. What I do not apologize for is the lack of honest-to-goodness care given to returning soldiers. My point is that everyone on the right side of the aisle is rah! rah! support our troops! but when it comes down to supporting them when they come home wounded, there is a deafening silence. And yes, a fair amount of blame can be leveled at the administration that has been in power for the last 7 years and has had control of the budget for the last 7 years and started a war that would put further strain on an already dilapidated veteran care infrastructure. So, yeah, I feel that the Bush administration should take some responsibility. Whatever lackey was responsible for making sure veterans get the care they EARNED fighting in the godforsaken hellhole called the Middle East should be drawn and quartered for his/their incompetence. There's no excuse for some of the garbage wounded vets have to put up with.

See, this is what supporting the soldier while still protesting the war is all about. Don't send men out to get shot at, have their legs and arms blown off and then just pin a Purple Heart on 'em, have a photo op, and then forget 'em. Vermillion is right; this is about accountability.

If you knew anything about the VA you would know it has been a disaster for decades. The same issues followed the Vietnam War. The reality is IMO the government does a poor job at nearly everything it does, especially when private industry is not involved (as in the manufacture of weapons and weapons systems). The VA IMO should be disbanded and the vets cared for in regular hospitals – funded by the government. Until this is done VA care will ALWAYS be substandard regardless of the money spent.

Bush Admin. Can take some blame but if you are trying to pin this on him you are way, way out of line. If the Congress approved an increase it could have been much larger and if not both parties share the blame. IMO the real problem is the Congress does not know how bad the VA is OR ignores it because it is “government”. If it was “private” they would be all over them like a blanket.

Great generalizations.......I would have had no quarrel with you if you had levelled the blame at Republicans instead of conservatives. Why do you think so many conservatives have jumped ship on the Bush Administration?
But Ted does speak true when he says that the VA has been a disaster for decades. It wasn't fixed during any of the last recent administrations. It is a waste of resources in my opinion, and but for the efforts of outside projects like the Wounded Warrior Project and others, examples such as yours might be more frequent.

Yeah, I’m personally aware of that. My dad is a disabled Korean War vet. And since the VA’s problems are so well-known, you would think that Bush, after having decided to start a war, would prepare for the inevitable increase in wounded/disabled soldiers returning home to an already busted system. As for disbanding the VA and making soldiers deal with the same incompetent, crappy medical system the rest of us have to put up with, I disagree. Their government sent these men and women into harm’s way, and the government OWES them first-class care once they return. If it weren’t for the VA, many veterans would never receive the care they need (my dad, for instance). I do think the VA needs a major housecleaning. I believe their health care personnel should be qualified, and be verified as such. I think doctors' licenses should be checked thoroughly. I think basic cleanliness should be a given. I think the administrative paper blizzard should (and could) be winnowed down. I believe administrative personnel who prove to be incompetent should be booted. I believe there should be a routine inspection of the quality of care given at each VA facility, or if such inspection is done, it should be done more often. Problem facilities should be scrutinized.

Bush is attempting to balance the budget on wounded veteran’s backs – doesn’t that just tick you off, even a little bit? How can you support cutting veteran’s care while supporting the war?

I know, good things do happen for our troops from both political parties. I am waiting for more parades of our strength in the streets.

I still don’t understand why any of our troops coming home should have to deal with less then perfect care in regards to facilities and our government in total should work to stop this. I think it would qualify as patriotism by our politicians more then lapel pins and rhetoric is all.

Ya sure. We will just solve the decades old problem, admit the VA is poorly managed, run and equipped – and has been for 60 + years and its up to BUSH to fix it all as we go to war. You HAVE to be joking.

As I said its not just money – government does not work efficiently. IMO throwing money at it will not get the “first- class” system we all would like to see for our men and women. IMO do it through the private system. They will use the money better and THAT is were the BEST doctors happen to be. All the nice buildings and equipment is worthless without good doctors.

No, I'm not joking, and you are not listening. Let's say you are going to start a war... you'd have to be pretty ignorant not to realize casualties are inevitable. You know the system is broken. So, what are you going to do about it? Eh, it's been that way for 60 years, so you do nothing. The inevitable occurs, thousands of wounded are poured into the system and the system buckles.

So, you say the administration that sent the soldiers to war, knowing the likelihood of casualties beforehand, knowing the infrastructure wouldn't be able to handle it, should bear no responsibility for the inevitable chaos that ensues?

Whether privatization is the answer or not, action should have been taken before sending thousands of soldiers into battle, not after. Budget should have been allocated for caring for the wounded and disabled. Veterans should not have to wait years to get their benefits. I'm still baffled why war supporters believe this is somehow acceptable or unimportant.

Who said the “system is broken” – go find a quote from a government source or the Congress. The point is government is very reluctant to admit had badly they operate anything.

The Congress, that spends the money, has never to my knowledge upgraded a hospital system at the beginning of a conflict. The reality is it is not the capacity that is lacking as much as the quality of the staff and equipment and this has been a problem forever – and will not get fixed IMO with money.

It will never be “acceptable” but this is how the government works. Write to your reps in Congress to get them off their butts. Good luck.

Huh? I thought it was you who said the system was broken and everyone knew it.

Looks like I might not need luck. I might write a letter to my rep and encourage her to vote for this. Some of them know what's up, and it's ironic how the proposed legislation addresses many of the issues I've brought up.

Sorry to be a skeptic but this is nearly exactly what was said in the 70s after the surge from Vietnam. Of course this is the run up to the 08 election and everyone is promising that “this time” it will be done right. Ya sure. Write it down and check in 20 years. Same poor substandard card will prevail if the government is still providing it IMO.

And as an aside you should now that IG supposedly has been looking over the system for DECADES? As I said – same ol same ol.

I guess I'm not quite as cynical as you.
Maybe we should just stop starting wars, eh?

I guess I'm not quite as cynical as you.
Maybe we should just stop starting wars, eh?


Now this is something we can agree on.

Lets see if we can get the rest of the world to go along!

I guess it was bound to happen.

It seems a bit petty to me to punish wounded soldiers for complaining about their treatment at the hands of the Army. In fact, I'd have to say it's pretty CS (chicken poop) on the part of the poobahs of WR.

WOW! Heads are rolling! The latest casualty of the mess at Walter Reed:

Maybe there is still hope for accountability after all.
Edited to add:

Oh, HELL, then again, maybe not. The guy who took Weightman's place as the commander of Walter Reed is Kevin Kiley, who used to be commander.

Take heart, Daffy. Kiley's replacement has already been named as well, and should be in place before the end of the month.

I must say, at least Casey seems to be truly sickened by what's going on at Walter Reed, and looking to make major, substantive improvments.

Imagine Rumsfeld's response to all of this: "Well, you treat your returning veterans with the hospitals you have, not the hospitals you want".

Premature? Are they NUTS?

So half a million veterans aren’t enough to justify changing “medical and administrative policies” that are already glaringly inadequate? In my opinion, the Bush administration doesn’t want to touch any legislation dealing with the results of the war so they can pass it on to the next president and let him/her take all the criticism. Just when I think they can’t sink any lower, they do.