The cost of surviving - Asylum Forums

Asylum Forums : Powered by vBulletin version 2.2.8

Asylum Forums > Políticás der Monde > The cost of surviving

Last Thread Next Thread

Author

Thread

Nutrimentia
plata o plomo

Registered: Sep 2000
Location: The Bottom of the Toyem Pole
Posts: 9453

The cost of surviving

quote:
From ForeignPolicy.com

Around 800,000 U.S. military troops have served in either Iraq or Afghanistan since Sept. 11, 2001. On top of being overstretched, the general health of the military may be deteriorating. More than 9,300 servicemen and women have been wounded, and there have been more than 14,400 Army medical evacuations in Iraq. At 7 to 1, the ratio of wounded to dead is the highest of any conflict in recent memory; in Vietnam, it was around 3 to 1. Wounded soldiers today have a much better chance of surviving than in the past—improved medical technology and body armor enable soldiers to endure injuries that would have killed them in previous wars. Priceless lives are saved, but the human cost of debilitating injuries and the financial cost of treatment and rehabilitation may loom large in years to come. Steve Robinson, executive director of the National Gulf War Resource Center, calculates that if a 24-year-old married male soldier with one child were to develop post-traumatic stress disorder—a condition that, together with depression and anxiety, afflicts about 1 in 6 soldiers returning from Iraq, according to the New England Journal of Medicine—he or she could receive compensation payments of more than $2,400 per month for the rest of his or her life.

This is the number 10 of "top 10 stories you missed this year" at ForeignPolicy. I find it interesting that if we were losing soldiers at the same rate as Vietnam, we'd have twice as many dead. Of course I'm not suggesting that we calculate it that way and I'm absolutely relieved that fewer people are getting killed. But I am bothered that we seem to focus on fatal casualities so often when in many cases the wounded end up with vastly more grisly tales of woe. And the pure wounded number doesn't reflect those with PTSD.

Incredible costs associated with wounded as well. Why aren't we holding those who failed to make the proper decisions about how to conduct this campaign accountable? Why are they still in office and in power? Does a population who refuses to hold those responsible accountable carry responsibility for those who suffer as a consequence? Probably, but no one every thinks about it or broaches the subject as part of a national debate. Surely it is in the interests of those responsible (on the population level as well as the government level) to avoid dealing with such questions.

__________________

[Ignore Sig]

The Law of Fives is never wrong. CzEch yerself b4 joo rEck yerself. Hi-yo!

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

12-13-2004 10:35 AM

Click here to Send Nutrimentia a Private Message

[P]

SimpleSimon
?

Registered: Dec 2002
Location:
Posts: 15982

Re: The cost of surviving

quote:
Originally posted by Nutrimentia
This is the number 10 of "top 10 stories you missed this year" at ForeignPolicy. I find it interesting that if we were losing soldiers at the same rate as Vietnam, we'd have twice as many dead. Of course I'm not suggesting that we calculate it that way and I'm absolutely relieved that fewer people are getting killed. But I am bothered that we seem to focus on fatal casualities so often when in many cases the wounded end up with vastly more grisly tales of woe. And the pure wounded number doesn't reflect those with PTSD.

Incredible costs associated with wounded as well. Why aren't we holding those who failed to make the proper decisions about how to conduct this campaign accountable? Why are they still in office and in power? Does a population who refuses to hold those responsible accountable carry responsibility for those who suffer as a consequence? Probably, but no one every thinks about it or broaches the subject as part of a national debate. Surely it is in the interests of those responsible (on the population level as well as the government level) to avoid dealing with such questions.

Nute, do you know why military ammunition is "full metal jacket" rounds? It is not an humanitarian issue, it is an economic/manpower issue. Kill a soldier, and any further costs to his comrades and society are minimal, in economic terms. Wound him, and at least two more men are taken out of combat roles and put into necessary support roles, as well as all of the economic costs and worse, psychological costs involved in his care.

All part of warfare, and always have been since the advent of battlefield care for the wounded. As to holding those responsible accountable, you need to ask yourself: who writes the histories?

The victors, of course. Accountability is seldom applied on the scale of war in the immediate term, and usually never applies to its perpetrators.

You ask "Does a population who refuses to hold those responsible accountable carry responsibility for those who suffer as a consequence?" Of course they do, if they have any real power in the choice of their leaders. Do you honestly believe any people on earth does have such "real choices"? If so, I admire your idealism whilst deploring your blindness.

You say "Surely it is in the interests of those responsible (on the population level as well as the government level) to avoid dealing with such questions." Most assuredly we largely do exactly that - we ignore them.

__________________

[Ignore Sig]

"...the last thing somebody crippled wants is your pity—and maybe not even your sympathy—he just wants to be normal again, just like everybody else. Every gesture of caring becomes a slap in the face, a reminder that you are not well. So damn your sympathy, damn your caring, how dare you stand over me, perfect and healthy, and offer your help and your secret condescension.

" - John Varley, Steel Beach

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

12-13-2004 07:30 PM