Wounds of War (Part I)

At first glance, this Washington Post column by Uwe E. Reinhardt, James Madison professor of political economy at Princeton University, looks like a catch-up effort on the part of the Post - a late attempt to follow the NY Time's lead. (Recall both the recent Times story claiming that troops are demanding that Americans suffer more in the war on terror and the op-ed from Stanford professor David Kennedy decrying the distance between the military and the population it defends while simultaneously describing that military as the new Hessians.)

The Post's headline is the first hint: Who's Paying for Our Patriotism? And a little bit of reading confirms the suspicion:

Moral hazard also can explain why the general public is so noticeably indifferent to the plight of our troops and their families. To be sure, we paste cheap magnetic ribbons on our cars to proclaim our support for the troops. But at the same time, we allow families of reservists and National Guard members to slide into deep financial distress as their loved ones stand tall for us on lethal battlefields and the family is deprived of these troops' typically higher civilian salaries.

When our son, then a recent Princeton graduate, decided to join the Marine Corps in 2001, I advised him thus: "Do what you must, but be advised that, flourishing rhetoric notwithstanding, this nation will never truly honor your service, and it will condemn you to the bottom of the economic scrap heap should you ever get seriously wounded." The intervening years have not changed my views; they have reaffirmed them.

Interesting that the professor would consider a person with some physical disability as condemned to the bottom of the economic scrap heap. While such impediments may result in an individual being denied consideration for tenure at Princeton, there are actually many wounded veterans and others with disabilities who are able to achieve great things in other endeavors.

But in spite of that poor choice of phrasing, Reinhardt's accusations of government (and popular) apathy towards the plight of America's wounded defenders bears further examination.

Let's not deny facts. Nothing can make war less ugly than it is. Landstuhl Regional Medical Center, the "clearing house" for nearly all military medical evacuees from Iraq and Afghanistan recently treated it's 25,000th patient from the war on terror. However, a very small percentage of those are combat wounds. Many were evacuated for illnesses. Many are returned to duty after brief inpatient treatment. Statistics for Army hospitals treating Operation Iraqi Freedom casualties can be found here. From March 19, 2003, through May 31, 2005 there were 18,729 total evacuations to Army facilities, broken down for cause as follows:

Wounded in action (WIA): 2,527
Non-battle injuries (NBI): 5,444
Disease: 10,758

188 Army soldiers, 28 of whom are multiple amputees
60 Marines, 10 of whom are multiple amputees
4 Navy sailors, no multiple amputees
2 Air Force amputees, 1 of whom is a multiple amputee
Total of 254 service member amputees treated in Army hospitals

Wounded in action (WIA): 122
Non-battle injuries (NBI): 408
Disease: 1,046

Total of 28 service member amputees treated in Army hospitals

There is nothing to celebrate in the numbers of injured - but it's interesting that media references are generally limited to unspecified "higher than expected" numbers of wounded. Others claim "cover-up" of the totals, or report "human interest" stories of individuals most grievously wounded that frequently mention the total number of medical evacuations from Iraq. Here's one example from 60 Minutes last year.

Part II is here.

(Original post: 2005-08-02 21:58:44)