View Full Version : A few good men
05-14-2008, 01:12 AM
WASHINGTON -- More than 43,000 U.S. troops listed as medically unfit for combat in the weeks before their scheduled deployment to Iraq or Afghanistan since 2003 were sent anyway, USA Today reported Thursday, citing Pentagon records.
The numbers of nondeployable soldiers are based on health assessment forms filled out by medical personnel at each military installation before a servicemember's deployment, the paper noted.
According to the statistics, the number of troops that doctors found nondeployable, but were still sent to Iraq or Afghanistan fluctuated from 10,854 in 2003, down to 5,397 in 2005, and back up to 9,140 in 2007, USA Today wrote.
The Pentagon records do not list what -- or how serious -- the health issues are, nor whether they were corrected before deployment, Michael Kilpatrick, a deputy director for the Pentagon's Force Health Protection and Readiness Programs, told the paper.
Check out Military.com's Deployment Center.
A Pentagon staffer examined 10,000 individual health records last year to determine causes for the nondeployable ratings, Kilpatrick said.
Some reasons included a need for eyeglasses, dental work or allergy medicine and a small number of mental health cases, Kilpatrick told USA Today.
This is the first war in which this health screening process has been used, according to the Pentagon.
Most of the nondeployable servicemembers are in the Army, which is doing most of the fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, USA Today wrote.
Unit commanders make the final decision about whether a servicemember is sent into combat, although doctors can recommend against deployment because of a medical issue, Army spokeswoman Kim Waldron told the paper.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The Pentagon records do not list what -- or how serious -- the health issues are, nor whether they were corrected before deployment, Michael Kilpatrick, a deputy director for the Pentagon's Force Health Protection and Readiness Programs, told the paper.
</div></div> The bolded section is the most important part of the entire article. I am only assuming here (and I know that will get me into trouble) but my guess is that your intent is to show another negative issue and blame W in some way. The article is not that biased and goes on to explain that some of the instances included a need for eye glasses or dental work. Neither of those should keep a soldier from doing his job and the services can be taken care of quickly. This is probably what happened but that does not fit in with your intent.
eg8r <~~~been wrong before
05-14-2008, 10:35 AM
I see you now have added mind reading to your repertoire.
I just copied an article that I found interesting, and a possible another indicator of how strained our combat resources are.
The bolded section of this article might be that important to you, but it doesn't whitewash the article for me(as it did for you)....and while you were quick to note the minor problems of eyeglasses and dental work....wasn't there also a mention of mental problems?
I didn't write the article, and I'm sure the author didn't write the article, then include a paragraph to negate the entire claim re it. "Nor whether", by the way is not exactly a statement that these issues were addressed....well, maybe to you.
Now if you really want to know what makes GWB look bad re this war.......it's the multiple tours of combat, necessary because:
A) he's running a war without a draft....because a draft would cost votes
B) the young people of America aren't exactly knocking down the doors of the recruiting office to show their "patriotism and support" for this war......in fact the ones that do enlist are doing it primarily for the enlistment bonus
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I see you now have added mind reading to your repertoire.
</div></div> No mind reading, just a little assumption. After reading your response it is evident I assumed correctly.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The bolded section of this article might be that important to you, but it doesn't whitewash the article for me(as it did for you)....and while you were quick to note the minor problems of eyeglasses and dental work....wasn't there also a mention of mental problems?
</div></div>Which examples do you think happen much more often? The article is posting numbers which you are trying to use to show strained resources and I am trying to take the same information and pointing out to you the numbers are not as bad as you wish they were.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Now if you really want to know what makes GWB look bad re this war</div></div> I don't need to you know any more of your opinions we have heard 8 years of grossly exaggerated opinions from the left.
05-14-2008, 11:16 AM
I posted the original article without added commentary....now you are wasting your time and mine with your stupid assumptions...trying to negate the article by attacking me for posting it.....you are learning fast from your mentor, lww
It's pretty typical for you both though..."kill the messenger"
maybe you will get that secret lww decoder ring after all.
I am not negating the article at all, I am using it to dispel your assertion that we are sending people to war with medical issues because our military is strained for soldiers. That simply is not the truth and the actual article you posted even dispels your assertion when it said many of those instances were probably rectified before the soldiers were sent to war.
05-14-2008, 11:28 AM
I can tell you with all sincerity that I would not be a happy camper if they sent me in to fight someone without my glasses or with a toothache. I think I would be more inclined to shoot at the person that was making me go to work, especially since I don't really see the need for me/us to kill people anyway. Either way, I'm pretty sure Bush doesn't set military policy in that regard just as I'm sure Wolfie wasn't slamming Bush in any way, contrary to the myopic view of the right wing moonbats around here. I didn't even see Wolfie express an opinion so I guess their desire to "not need to you know any more of your opinions" must not apply here.
What struck me about the article was the number of ailing combatants. I suppose it may be something like exam day in school. Perhaps one gets fed up with the job of soldiering and feigns illness to get out of it. I could also see where one might be semi-gungho until one actually had to engage in killing before one realized that they had a mental aversion to it. I could also see where a certain population of the military might be accepted for service even though most might consider them to be mentally incompetent. Of course, there would be a certain percentage that would just be ill on occasion.
I do know that the few times I've been seasick, for example, I would not have objected to being shot and killed as I felt that I was near death anyway. It would be interesting to know if Army personnel treat ill soldiers like kids that don't want to go to school or if there is some criteria that they use to judge severity and combat readiness. I'm sure it would probably vary from unit to unit somewhat.
05-14-2008, 11:45 AM
I take it just as Wolfdancer says, a good article that should make us think. If we are afraid to hear these things, we should not support war.
Gayle in MD
05-14-2008, 12:50 PM
Like everything else, with this administration, it's worse than we think.
Gayle in Md.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.0 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.