PDA

View Full Version : Toll Of U.S. Wounded Rises Fast



Seraphim
09-02-2003, 11:51 AM
http://msnbc.com/news/960067.asp

http://a799.g.akamai.net/3/799/388/7a81be918e718f/msnbc.com/news/1999642.jpg

A wounded soldier is moved to his plane at Andrews Air Force Base, outside Washington, D.C.



More than 1,100 wounded in action since Iraq war began


Sept. 2 — U.S. battlefield casualties in Iraq are increasing dramatically in the face of continued attacks by remnants of Saddam Hussein’s military and other forces, with almost 10 American troops a day now being officially declared “wounded in action.”

THE NUMBER of those wounded in action, which totals 1,124 since the war began in March, has grown so large, and attacks have become so commonplace, that U.S. Central Command usually issues press releases listing injuries only when the attacks kill one or more troops. The result is that many injuries go unreported.
The rising number and quickening pace of soldiers being wounded on the battlefield have been overshadowed by the number of troops killed since President Bush declared an end to major combat operations May 1. But alongside those Americans killed in action, an even greater toll of battlefield wounded continues unabated, with an increasing number being injured through small-arms fire, rocket-propelled grenades, remote-controlled mines and what the Pentagon refers to as “improvised explosive devices.”
Indeed, the number of troops wounded in action in Iraq is now more than twice that of the Persian Gulf War in 1991. The total increased more than 35 percent in August — with an average of almost 10 troops a day injured last month.

Fifty-five Americans were wounded in action last week alone, pushing the number of troops wounded in action since May 1 beyond the number wounded during peak fighting. From March 19 to April 30, 550 U.S. troops were wounded in action in Iraq. Since May 1, the number totals 574. The number of troops killed in Iraq since the beginning of May already has surpassed the total killed during the height of the war.
Pentagon officials point to advances in military medicine as one of the reasons behind the large number of wounded soldiers; many lives are being saved on the battlefield that in past conflicts would have been lost. But the rising number of casualties also reflects the resistance that U.S. forces continue to meet nearly five months after Hussein was ousted from power.
Although Central Command keeps a running total of the wounded, it releases the number only when asked — making the combat injuries of U.S. troops in Iraq one of the untold stories of the war.

‘OUT OF SIGHT’
With no fanfare and almost no public notice, giant C-17 transport jets arrive virtually every night at Andrews Air Force Base outside Washington, on medical evacuation missions. Since the war began, more than 6,000 service members have been flown back to the United States. The number includes the 1,124 wounded in action, 301 who received non-hostile injuries in vehicle accidents and other mishaps, and thousands who became physically or mentally ill.
“Our nation doesn’t know that,” said Susan Brewer, president and founder of America’s Heroes of Freedom, a nonprofit organization that collects clothing and other personal items for the returning troops. “Sort of out of sight and out of mind.”
On Thursday night, a C-17 arrived at Andrews with 44 patients from Iraq. Ambulances arrived to take the most seriously wounded to the nation’s two premier military hospitals, Water Reed Army Medical Center in Washington and the National Naval Medical Center in Bethesda. Dozens of others stayed overnight at what the Air Force calls a contingency aeromedical staging facility, which has taken over an indoor tennis club and an adjacent community center.
On Friday morning, smaller C-130 transports began arriving to take the walking wounded and less seriously injured to their home bases, from Fort Bragg in North Carolina to Fort Lewis in Washington state. Another C-17 was due in Friday night from Germany, with 12 patients on stretchers, 24 listed on the flight manifest as ambulatory and nine other passengers, either family members or escorts.
“That’s going to fill us right back up by the end of today,” said Lt. Col. Allen Delaney, who commands the staging center. Eighty-six members of his reserve unit, the 459th Aeromedical Staging Squadron, based at Andrews, were called up for a year in April to run what is essentially a medical air terminal, the nation’s hub, for war wounded from Iraq.
At Walter Reed, a half-hour drive from Andrews, Maj. Gen. Kevin C. Kiley, the hospital’s commanding general, said there were only two days in July and four in August that the hospital did not admit soldiers injured in Iraq.
“The orthopedic surgeons are very busy, and the nursing services are very busy, both in the intensive care units and on the wards,” he said, explaining that there have been five or six instances in recent months when all of the hospital’s 40 intensive care beds have been filled-mostly with battlefield wounded.

‘AMPUTATING DAMAGE’
Kiley said rocket-propelled grenades and mines can wound multiple troops at a time and cause “the kind of amputating damage that you don’t necessarily see with a bullet wound to the arm or leg.”
The result has been large numbers of troops coming back to Walter Reed and National Naval Medical with serious blast wounds and arms and legs that have been amputated, either in Iraq or at Landstuhl Regional Medical Center in Germany, where virtually all battlefield casualties are treated and stabilized.
“A few of us started volunteering [at Walter Reed] as amputees in 1991, and this is the most we’ve seen ever,” said Jim Mayer, a double amputee from the Vietnam War who works at the Veterans Administration. “I’ve never seen anything like this. But I haven’t seen anybody not get good care.”

Kiley said that Walter Reed has 600 physicians and 350 physicians in training, plus reservists and the ability to bring in more nurses if necessary. The hospital “could go on from an operational perspective indefinitely — we have a lot of capacity,” he said. The hospital has treated 1,100 patients from the war, including 228 battlefield casualties.
National Naval Medical Centerwas most severely stressed during the major combat phase of the war, said Capt. Michael J. Krentz, its deputy commander. During that period, 800 of the hospital’s medical professionals — a third of its regular staff and half its military staff-deployed overseas to the USNS Comfort, a Navy hospital ship. The hospital called up 600 reservists to replace them.
Before the fall of Baghdad in April, the hospital had 40 patients a night — mostly Marines — from Iraq. Now the number is down to three, since the Marines have begun departing and will soon hand peacekeeping duties in their area south of Baghdad to multinational forces.
“Taking care of returning casualties is our number one job — that’s why we’re here,” Krentz said. “That’s our sworn duty, and it’s our honor to do so.”
Kiley and Krentz said high-tech body armor and state-of-the-art battlefield medical procedures are keeping more seriously wounded soldiers alive than ever before.
Krentz said advanced radiological equipment aboard the Comfort enabled doctors to spot internal injuries and operate much sooner than they might have otherwise been able to, preventing fatalities. In fact, he said, patients had been stabilized so well overseas that there were no deaths of returning service members at Bethesda.
Kiley said he had seen several cases in which soldiers had been operated on in the field so quickly that doctors managed to save limbs that might otherwise have been lost. “But it’s a long haul even when they do preserve limbs,” he said.

© 2003 The Washington Post Company

SOG
09-02-2003, 01:07 PM
cool, fewer people are dying!

also i like there liberal use of the word "large" with no comparison and number. top notch guessing, ahem, i mean "jounalism".

persoanlly i think this is a very one sided article put out to fluff the left and hurt those serving or those concerned. for instance the "fanfare" paragraph.


‘OUT OF SIGHT’
With no fanfare and almost no public notice, giant C-17 transport jets arrive virtually every night at Andrews Air Force Base outside Washington, on medical evacuation missions. Since the war began, more than 6,000 service members have been flown back to the United States. The number includes the 1,124 wounded in action, 301 who received non-hostile injuries in vehicle accidents and other mishaps, and thousands who became physically or mentally ill.

im sorry, i didnt know i was supposed to know the schedule and flights of andrews air force base and who was on them and make regular nightly trips cheering those coming back looking like a massive fruit. top notch editorial.

Haiw
09-02-2003, 01:15 PM
no it's just an article that says what's really happening...

Trident-za
09-02-2003, 02:03 PM
no it's just an article that says what's really happening...

I agree with that. Not all articles which don't claim everything is wonderful are rubbish, or written by "the left".

Haiw
09-02-2003, 02:29 PM
the thing that concerns me most in the article (since i already knew about the amount of the high amount of injuries) is the part about 'AMPUTATING DAMAGE'...it says theres been a large amount of ppl with amputated limbs...i suppose i cudnt think of anything worse that cud happen to me than lose one or more limbs :(

Argyll
09-02-2003, 02:42 PM
Wounded personnel,are still causing the reduction of combat effective troops in theatre!
An incident where 5 guys are wounded,renders that unit 5 guys less,I know it sounds harsh,but having more wounded than KIA is more a blow to the parent unit in its effectiveness,over 1 KIA.

SOG
09-02-2003, 04:17 PM
I have to agree; it seems like a pretty neutral, objective statement of facts. The article simply states that unlike what happens in the movies, there is no band and cheering crowd there to welcome them home. And any ten wounded a day is a very large number, especially relative to the number that the general American public is willing to accept on average. Nice to know that journalist noticed. Thank you, God bless, Godspeed, and get well soon too all our wounded. Have a good one, and just some thoughts...

sorry, have to disagree with you. the paragraph i pointed out is very demeaning to me and my family. why does the author even bring up there is little fanfare or public notice? there never has been for random flights of few personell, perhaps he is suggesting there should be?


The article simply states that unlike what happens in the movies, there is no band and cheering crowd there to welcome them home.

actually for every deployment we send out here there is not only a crowd of family and friends and personell to welcome them back being marine or navy but it is always covered on every single news station. im sorry if yours wasnt the case. so actually quite so movies mimic exactly what happens locally ALL the time. once again i took offence to the article because when i worked in MWR we all left on our own time to welcome the marines back from any deployment peace or war time. so for some jackhole author to say there should be some sort of fanfare for random flights carrying few personell in which only the family and friends know whos on them i think is ludicrous.

Trigger
09-02-2003, 05:32 PM
It's really sad when our soldiers are gravely wounded. I can't imagine what it must be like to lose a limb or worse and I pray for every one of those brave souls that are bearing the brunt of these terrorist acts.
That being said, WE ARE IN A WAR, PEOPLE. Soldiers are going to be wounded and possibly die. The only problem I have with the article is that the author seems to assume that nobody knows or cares.
Sometimes I fear for the future of my country when I see such emotional frailty from so many. What would our lives be like if, say, 60 years ago at places like Iwo Jima or Omaha Beach we had the same sqeamishness about casualties we have today? We lost 10,000 in one day at Normandy and 20,000 at Iwo Jima if I'm not mistaken. Think about those numbers. People back then had some backbone.

Argyll
09-02-2003, 05:54 PM
Trigger,
Totally different concepts you're dealing with there,Normandy and Iwo Jima were during a WORLD war,where the vast majority of the Globe had decalared war against Japan and Nazi germany,where the very survival of countries depended on Allied help.
Vietnam was a war in which 10's of 1000's of GI's died,in a war that the American public did not believe was a war worth fighting,the ideals of fighting communism kind of faded after Korea,hence Only the Aussies had small numbers of combat troops fighting there
Modern Warfare now with the introduction of so called "smart technology" has made battlefield casualties,in their 100's or even 1000's a thing of the past.
When any countries casualties start to mount in a far off land where there seems to be a cause that the voting public do not understand,or disagree wth from the offset,that is when the increasing casualties starts to make an impact on these individuals.The trouble is you stated we are in a war,it was also a war that, 40% at least,of the voting public did not want,it was a war that the UN,as much as a bunch of pricks they are,did not sanction........despite 1441,it is a war that does not have the backing of the World.
To have a 1000 WIA,is like losing a Battalions worth of support on the ground,and given the amount of US troops in country,I'd say that would have an impact on the overall combat effectiveness,on the whole

GazB
09-03-2003, 07:55 AM
I doubt if people in the period of WWII had any more or less backbone than now. Nobody went to war in WWII because they thought it was the right thing to do. The British, and hence the Commonwealth declared war on Germany only after Germany invaded Poland. They had already taken over several countries and noone outside those countries did anything about it. The US didn't join the war till they were attacked, the Soviet Union did the same. China was invaded in the mid 30s by the Japanese... apart from sanctions no one invaded Japan, or declared war on her.

The difference here is that Saddam has not been seen as a direct threat to anyone. Even Iraqs neighbours didn't seem that interested in supporting the war... except of course Kuwaite and Saudi Arabia. Even Turkey wasn't interested... shows you how dangerous Saddam really was... the truth is only the Iraqis needed to fear him, and the way they are acting now, you must be wondering what it was all for.

Anyway what I meant to say was that basically WWII was forced on the world by an aggressor called Adolf Hitler. This recent attack on Iraq was belated punnishment for past transgressions, but no actual aggression... except on the part of the west, or should I say US/UK.

oldsoak
09-03-2003, 12:19 PM
Heres a thought -
If Iraq was of no interest to the US, no one else would remove Saddam. Why ? perhaps because no one else had any real interest. He's been at that address for a few years. He'd still be there grinning on billboards while some of us wrung our hands and beat our breasts in sorrow over his cruelty. Maybe a protest or two to lighten our moral burden and give us a nice warm glow...nothing that could be construed as warlike, which is after all not nice and really quite against what the UN is for. So how do we remove dictators of his ilk ? Do we even remove dictators ? Considering the police states and dictators sitting in the UN, could we rely on that august body to vote out one of the club ?
just my 2p
rgds