January 21, 2008

Returning from Iraq: 1 in 5 Have Brain Injuries

If this is accurate, it's horrifying.

The Pentagon is releasing a report saying, one in five American serviceman and women who have been in Iraq are coming back with brain injuries. Mild, traumatic brain injuries. More than 250,000 people. That legacy of that will last all of our life times and it’s incalculable.
Posted by armand at January 21, 2008 08:03 PM | TrackBack | Posted to Iraq


Comments

And twice that total result every year, involving alcohol. Are you giving up scotch in order to curb these incalculable injuries?

Posted by: Morris at January 22, 2008 01:30 AM | PERMALINK

Oh, puh-leeze. See I have the choice to drink Scotch or not. The same can't be said of those who are forced to go fight (and maybe die) in Iraq. And in return for any injuries I get many pleasurable experiences. And I think a lot of people would argue the injuries I might suffer really aren't like those suffering from PTSD. And furthermore any injuries I suffer are not undermining national security, and endangering our ability to field a top-notch military that can defend the country from a host of present and future military threats. I could go on, but to assert that they are similar is really silly Mo.

Posted by: Armand at January 22, 2008 09:25 AM | PERMALINK

Forced to fight? As you would say, oh, puh-leeze. Do you even know what all volunteer force means? Is it at all realistic for people to join the armed forces and then be given the option to opt out of any conflicts they want? Why would we even have an armed forces, because in letting that policy exist, we might have to recruit a whole new one just because the media (as in this case) sends out a distorted message regarding the war? Further, let us not forget that poll you libs love to bring up about how half the troops disagreed with the President about Iraq a year ago, and let us also not exist that of the half that disagreed, 40% wanted more troops in Iraq, not less. And they were right. Surprise, surprise, the soldiers on the ground were a whole lot better at calling that one than your Mrs. Pelosi or your Mr. Kerry-Heinz.

But lest I drift too far, the question remains. Why is a quarter million total mild TBIs "incalculable" harm, and half a million every year related to alcohol just the price of freedom? Why is under five thousand total deaths in Iraq a great tragedy but about 17 thousand deaths every year from DWIs something you can live with? You want to talk about innocents, people forced into harm's way. I've got many people in my groups that walked away from their accidents. But not everybody is that lucky, and many times it's not the ones drinking that die or get a mild TBI. It's the people "forced" into their way, who don't go out looking for "a legacy that will last all our lifetimes".

Posted by: Morris at January 22, 2008 11:18 AM | PERMALINK

Were you born this clueless?

The first paragraph is so off-the-charts batty that I don't even know how to respond to it at the moment. As to the latter - huh? Your big point is about the use of the modifier "incalculable"? And so what, you want the government to ban drinking or something? I don't know what you are arguing. But the basic point to me is that the Bush government (with the acquiescence of the Congress, including Hillary Clinton) decided to launch a fantastically expensive folly that is going to leave the country bankrupt, thousands dead, and hundreds of thousands of Americans with brain injuries, all to prop up a non-functioning Islamic government that includes people who've killed Americans, and is Iran's BFF. The government isn't forcing people to drink and drive. But it is forcing troops into combat, and in the process putting them in a position where hundreds of thousands will have brain injuries.

And that you don't think our soldiers, sailors and Marines are in any way forced into this position - well that's just beyond silly. And what "distorted message" are you talking about. Why would the Pentagon report by "distorted message"? Are you suggesting the Pentagon is out to mislead America?

Posted by: Armand at January 22, 2008 11:32 AM | PERMALINK

And sorry about that opening to the last comment Morris, but seriously. You seem flippant about hundreds of thousands of Americans getting these injuries - almost "they had it comin'".

Posted by: Armand at January 22, 2008 12:39 PM | PERMALINK

"The government isn't forcing people to drink and drive."

But by alcohol being legal, by the absence of a possible force against it, others are forced into the paths of drunk drivers. Nobody says "I wanna get hit by a drunk driver" tonight. On the other hand, 90% of our soldiers, at the war's lowest point, believed that we should either keep fighting it or turn up the heat even more. And they were right, a whole lot less people (by some estimates, 75% in the Baghdad corridor) are dying there. And at least soldiers in Iraq die for something, for patriotism, to free people from oppression. What do people die for when they get hit by a drunk driver?

Iraq is going to tell us if this approach works. If Iraq doesn't work, there's no reason to negotiate with these crazed Islamists any more. If they're a threat to our way of life, we wipe them out. But out of compassion we don't want that to be our first option.

Posted by: Morris at January 22, 2008 01:44 PM | PERMALINK

If they're a threat to our way of life, we wipe them out.

Isn't that their approach to us?

Posted by: jacflash at January 22, 2008 05:32 PM | PERMALINK

Jacflash,
The difference, as I noted in my comment, is that they don't give us the chance to live in peace with them. Iraq is us losing thousands of soldiers and hundreds of billions of dollars to give them that chance. If they don't take it, then that says something about how mainstream Islamic fundamentalists are. If they are committed to wiping us out, I say we beat them to the punch.

Posted by: Morris at January 22, 2008 08:45 PM | PERMALINK

Logic has officially left the building.

"But by alcohol being legal, by the absence of a possible force against it, others are forced into the paths of drunk drivers." What on Earth are you talking about? How are people forced into the paths of drunk drivers? And why on Earth do you think that making alcohol illegal would end drunk driving?

"And at least soldiers in Iraq die for something, for patriotism, to free people from oppression." Ummm, you do know who's now in power in Iraq, right? I'd hardly say we've freed the country from oppression. Certainly people who've been massacred by their countrymen who we've helped put into positions of power wouldn't think that - nor would many of the women of Southern Iraq, the gays of Iraq, those who appreciate a cocktail or perhaps a foreign movie ... you get where I'm going with this.

"Iraq is going to tell us if this approach works. If Iraq doesn't work, there's no reason to negotiate with these crazed Islamists any more. If they're a threat to our way of life, we wipe them out. But out of compassion we don't want that to be our first option." Yes, nothing shows compassion like a war that kills hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, makes millions refugees, and basically wipes out life as much of the society knew it. But beyond that, who are these crazed Islamists we are negotiating with? And why are we negotiating with crazed Islamists?

Posted by: Armand at January 22, 2008 11:17 PM | PERMALINK

"How are people forced into the paths of drunk drivers?"

How are people forced into an all volunteer force?

"But beyond that, who are these crazed Islamists we are negotiating with? And why are we negotiating with crazed Islamists?"

It's Democrats like Pelosi and Barrack who want to negotiate with the Islamic leaders of Syria and Iran. We had the power to turn Fallujah into radioactive dust, but we didn't do it. We took out their leadership, and gave them a chance to rule themselves, and yes it cost thousands of lives. So, yes, that is the compassionate alternative. How they respond to our use of the compassionate alternative should guide our negotiations with them.

Posted by: Morris at January 23, 2008 01:17 AM | PERMALINK

Morris, I'm very afraid to get involved in this - you are making less sense than usual. That being said, you do know that we don't face a single opponent in Iraq (or the Middle East, for that matter), right? You keep saying "they", "their" and "them," but that isn't right. There are multiple groups of Iraqis; some oppose us and some support us. We aren't fighting with a single group.

Posted by: baltar at January 23, 2008 10:00 AM | PERMALINK

"How are people forced into an all volunteer force?"

Well I guess I could go into the arguments related to poverty, lack of job opportunities or occupational training, a desire for citizenship ... but the general argument you seem to be making kind of makes that discussion irrelevant. You seem to think that as long as people volunteered to defend the country, then no matter what position George Bush puts them in, whatever he orders them to do, whatever happens to them, they had it comin' b/c they volunteered to defend the country.

And you said we are currently negotiating with crazed Islamists. Last I checked Nancy Pelosi didn't direct US foreign policy. So again, what on Earth are you taking about?

And Fallujah is evidence of our "compassion"? Wow. I'm left speechless at that assertion.

And so are you finally dropping that silly drunk drunking comparison now? Please do - b/c your argument would seem to suggest that unless the government bans cell phones, Benadryl and drive-thru burger joints (which all impair driving) the government is wantonly killing people by putting them in the path of impaired drivers. And I just find that silly.

Posted by: Armand at January 23, 2008 11:00 AM | PERMALINK

Bro,
See, you reveal yourself with your comment. First you assumed my thought was the troops had it coming because they chose to defend their country, and now you assume it again. The trouble is, that is how libs think about soldiers, that that's what happens when you get in the MILITARY, that evil despots come along and it serves you right for joining the MILITARY.

My distinct assumption is that it is completely impractical to have a fighting force that is not required to fight unless they feel like it. I'd personally love to get some small arms training at the military's expense, but as a friend who'd been in the army says, they're going to get their share out of the bargain. You seem to think people should be able to join the military because they're poor, get the salary and benefits for themselves and their family, and not give anything back. And there is just as much of a connection between a government not eliminating poverty and thus being responsible for people joining the military as there is between a government not eliminating alcohol and all the misery that results. They are both unrealistic as to the power of government.

And I hate to break it to you, but people don't have to go to Iraq. They can take a dishonorable discharge. They had a choice to join, and they do in fact have a choice of whether or not to go to Iraq. But I suppose you think poor people can't help themselves, and you probably excuse meth merchants the same way. I might remind you that unemployment during the Bush administration is about the same as unemployment during the Clinton administration. So are you making the case that Bill Clinton killed people in Iraq because he didn't eliminate their poverty and thus they were forced into military service in Mogadishu, Bosnia and Iraq? Because that would be an accurate extension of your argument.

Pelosi doesn't have control of foreign policy, but you certainly would like Barrack to have control, and he's of the same frame of mind as Pelosi and John Kerry, everything will be different when a Democrat becomes President. Well I may remind you that the first terrorist attack on US soil was in 1993, when Bill Clinton was President. Terrorist attacks continued throughout his Presidency, including attacks on our embassies in East Africa and the slaughter of our troops in Mogadishu when the Clinton administration would not allow air cover from AC 130's. Terrorists realize their power through hatred of Americans, not hatred of conservatives.

And Fallujah could have been a crater in the ground. We could have brought in B-52s or B-2s or cruise missiles and left nothing but a crater. But we went in, house to house, so that people would have homes to come back to, and we lost many soldiers doing it that way.

Baltar,
Who are we fighting in Iraq? We're being attacked by Sunni and Shia. And at the point where Islamic societies will not root out those among them, or even allow us to root out, those who would destroy us, their way of life threatens our existence. Their schools and cartoons in Palestine and Saudi Arabia teach children about the path to heaven in bringing death to the infidel. I've personally never heard of a Christian church sending out that message, not for the last few centuries. And yet there are tens of thousands of Muslims coming out of the woodwork to attack us. But Islam is a peaceful religion? Islam is a repressive religion akin to Christianity of many centuries ago, and its members sublimate their instincts into their jihad. Unless we open their societies and change their repressive ways, we can expect more jihad, not less.

Posted by: Morris at January 23, 2008 12:51 PM | PERMALINK

You seriously think Christianity is a peaceful religion today? Have you heard of Ireland? Are you aware of the stone 'em and mutilate 'em language that is the book that millions believe is the literal word of god? And of course (I am just soooo surprised) you don't engage Baltar's point at all - you simply state that we are fighting an undifferentiated Muslim mass - and that's patently untrue.

As to your response (or tirade to me):
1) Yes Morris I know you think Democrats are a bunch of appeasers, but please remember that your comment above that brought this turn in the conversation was your (weird) view that we are currently negotiating with crazed Islamists. And yet again, we don't correct your comment or explain what in the world you were talking about.
2) Fallujah was more or less made into a crater in the ground. Maybe a series of craters smaller than those that would've been made with more airstrikes (wait - are you implying we don't use a mass of airstrikes? - do you even know the nature of what we're doing there? because we sure as hell are using a ton of airstrikes), but the notion that there were many homes to return to is fanciful (oh, and for the record I presume most of our casualties there were Marines).

3) And as to the first part of what you write - what the hell are you talking about? Did I say the government was responsible for people joining the military? Did I say that the poor who join shouldn't do their jobs? All that's complete crap. What I did say was that the government is choosing to put tens of thousands of brave Americans in a position we're the'll suffer from brain injuries - all in the name of propping up an ineffective government run (to a degree) by "crazed Islamists". Personally, I think we'd better serve the country by not doing that to people who give of themselves in order to serve it.

Posted by: Armand at January 23, 2008 02:01 PM | PERMALINK

Morris - I'm not sure what you are arguing at this point. The point I was trying to make was that you should not lump all Iraqis (and I think you are lumping everyone in the Middle East, but I won't go there) together; there is a huge difference between the groups fighting us (much less the huge difference between the groups fightings us and the groups neutral or supportive of us). You are being mentally sloppy, and it hurts your ability to make a clear point.

As for what you actually wrote, I think you need to examine the history of Christianity a bit more. There are certainly Christian churches who have a militant bent (Koresh, Phelps, "The Watchmen" in California), and there are even more certainly militant political movements that are publicly Christian (American Nazi, KKK, those idiots guarding the Mexican border, the US Air Force - that last one was a joke, by the way). Should we be blamed for not "rooting out those among us"? Should our society be judged by the most radical elements of it ('cause that's what you are doing to Islam)?

Do you really see all of the Middle East as one, monolithic people?

Posted by: baltar at January 23, 2008 11:12 PM | PERMALINK

Two words, strangely absent from this thread to date: "Stop loss." While stop loss is, technically, legal, encompassed in the commitment our fighting men and women make to their country, it still reflects a faith broken with the volunteer military, as do other similar methods by which our government avoids sharing the supposedly existential burden of pursuing this war across the entire population by instituting the draft, changing fiscal policy to reflect the tremendous expense of the misadventure (as every other wartime president in history has done in the face of a similarly dear conflict), or otherwise making sure that the electorate at large feels the pinch enough to affect their votes for or against the people responsible.

Posted by: moon at January 24, 2008 11:02 AM | PERMALINK

As Bohm has said, there's two basic mistakes. One is to think two things are the same when they're not. They other is to think two things are different when they're not. The fact is, I am talking about crazed Islamists rather than crazed Sunnis or crazed Shia or crazed Persians or crazed Arabians because the essential feature they share, besides Islam, is their desire to kill us. They are different varieties which speaks to the prevalence of their intolerant poison. But what is similar about them, their desire to kill us, is more important to me than the subtleties of their culture. As I say, their are many varieties:

"Although Saudi Arabia was by far the most common country of origin of foreign fighters, with about 40 percent of the total, a surprising share -- 19 percent -- came from Libya. Overall, about 40 percent were North African."

But they are, more importantly to me, trying to kill us:

"Al-Qaeda in Iraq carried out more than 4,500 attacks against civilians in 2007, killing 3,870 and wounding nearly 18,000, the military announced yesterday."

How many attacks did Koresh carry out? A bunch of thugs burned women and children and still you cover up the Clinton engineered massacre of women and children. How many other of your great examples have carried out 4,500 attacks this year? None? How many of those thug Christians have killed almost four thousand people, even in all the time since I've been alive? Still not even close, eh?

Your moral equivalency isn't equivalent because there is a difference in frequency and intensity of attacks between crazed Islamists and Christians. The man who steals a dollar from a cash register may be just as guilty of stealing as the Enron executive, but to confuse the two is a blindness to the substance of proportion and measurement. And as you would make the point, you must also look at trend lines which up until four months ago indicated an increasing degree of violence.

Posted by: Morris at January 24, 2008 10:08 PM | PERMALINK

well, why don't we just call everyone who has a problem with the U.S. al-Qaeda. oh wait, we already do. sure does simplify the debate, eh?

Posted by: moon at January 25, 2008 10:22 AM | PERMALINK

Wtf Mo? You write - "and still you cover up the Clinton engineered massacre of women and children". As you are probably well aware I am not on the Clinton's Christmas card list, nor is it within my power to cover-up massacres.

Posted by: Armand at January 25, 2008 12:36 PM | PERMALINK

Moon,
You are absolutely right, Al Queda in Iraq is only one of many crazed Islamist groups attacking us. And before the surge reached full strength, there were about 1,600 attacks a week, so for the first half of last year that makes roughly 40,000 attacks by all factions, maybe 50k to 60k for the year, of which AQ was responsible for a fifteenth. But none of your proposed crazed Christian groups approaches that level of violence, of a fifteenth of one year in one country by crazed Islamists, no Christian group has done that much damage over the course of my entire life. These are throwbacks to the Dark Ages. Christianity has progressed. Islam hasn't.

Posted by: Morris at January 25, 2008 12:38 PM | PERMALINK

Well, depends on how you define Christianity - a lot of the imperial age stuff of the 19th and 20th centuries had to do with bringing the true faith to those dirty, heathen masses. And I'm guessing (well, no, not guessing - there's polling to support it) that a lot of Muslims see the US waging a religious war in Iraq and the Middle East more broadly - and selling the Israelis masses of weapons that've been used to kill thousands of Muslims. And Baltar's joke above about the Air Force alludes to the fact that more than a few Americans see our actions in the region that way too.

But let's get back to this "crazed Islamist" thing? Who are the crazed ones, when did they become crazed and when do they stop being crazed. I mean is Sadr crazed even though he's influential in a government we helped form? Is Qaddafi? Is he no longer crazed b/c he doesn't kill Americans now? I think we've probably digressed to a point where we might as well give up on the thread, but if you feel like continuing ...

Posted by: Armand at January 25, 2008 01:10 PM | PERMALINK

Continuing the digression(s) . . . if we generally don't believe our country is engaged in a religious struggle in the Middle East, or more accurately believe that our government is not acting in the name of Christianity in perpetrating the war in Iraq (and I do believe this, although I can't help but qualify that when I consider how many people who sought to wage the war and seek to continue it claim to act according to their Christian faiths), but they nonetheless see things in those terms, isn't it possible that at least some of what we construe as hostility deriving from their faiths is not, for them, couched in their faiths?

And what in its place? Well, we imagine we're exporting freedom, in the abstract a reasonably laudable, secular goal. Perhaps good, smart, informed people in the Middle East imagine that we're imposing imperial rule, and resist us not in the name of Islam, but in the name of sovereignty, however contested within their borders by competing factions.

I don't suppose this adds much to the discussion, but it does highlight the danger of arrogating to oneself a rhetorical pose of objectivity about both sides, when it's probably not attainable with respect to either side.

(Of course, plenty of people over there see there own actions as responsive to religion, but of course the same is true here, from the rank and file, through the electorate, and into the halls of power.)

Posted by: moon at January 26, 2008 03:31 PM | PERMALINK
Post a comment









Remember personal info?