http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Mar07/Szczekoski12.htm Behind the Walter Reed Scandal
by Joseph Szczekoski
www.dissidentvoice.org
March 12, 2007
In the wake of the recent reports over poor treatment of wounded soldiers at Walter Reed Army Medical Center (WRAMC), as described in the Washington Post, it would do well for us to consider the possibility that the outrage we are expressing may have been in fact intended to appear at this very moment in time. We may unleash fury at this “scandal,” and it is probably our fury at the war, but we may also be missing an important development.
The existence of an underhanded attempt to revamp the military healthcare system according to administration and Pentagon geopolitical demands but with the emotional responses of Americans largely opposed to these demands as the justification for this revamping cannot be ruled out as impossible. Indeed, this situation is probable.
The popular response to the “scandal” at WRAMC and the subsequent Veterans Affairs “scandal” will be used to justify the modernization of a healthcare system that could not be modernized without such a popular mandate. Many people opposed to the war are currently advocating, by expressing admittedly justified outrage, the expansion of an important part of the very system they may be trying to contain. The unpopularity of the war would not allow this modernization to occur upon request and certainly not upon demand. Any attempt to revamp the system, without a popular mandate, would therefore be immediately recognized as an expansionary effort at a time when military expansion is unpopular. This mandate is our outrage, and the war itself cannot continue without such a mandate. With the numbers of wounded steadily growing, there is no choice but to stop the war or to refurbish the healthcare system. If we support this refurbishment as dictated by the war’s architects, we also support the war.
In response to a failing war, the people running this country have found opportunity to revamp the domestic military medical healthcare system according to their geopolitical ambitions. In the United States, Iraq is all but a dead duck, but the nature of the conflict has opened certain doors where windows have been closed. The high numbers of Operation Iraqi Freedom wounded and the government’s inability to treat these wounds has long been evident. American soldiers overseas enjoy the most modernized, efficient, battlefield medical treatment and evacuation system in history. On-site care, open roads and airways, globally established medical facilities, communications, and in-transit treatment capabilities contribute to the current influx of wounded. In a war where little else has been positive, where so many and so diverse wounds have been endured and sustained, the medical treatment and evacuation system has performed superbly, and has been widely lauded to boot. But until now the focus on the dead has drawn much attention away from the epidemic of the wounded. Indeed, wounded are known as a more accurate gauge of the costs of this war than the dead, and there is ample literature on this situation specifying the contexts, types, nature, and number of injuries.
A few examples of the efficiency of the combat medicine system will demonstrate the gravity of the situation. There are anywhere from 25,000 to 50,000 wounded, depending on definitions At least two-dozen arrive home every week (on Tuesday, Thursday, and Sunday, invariably at night), and are expected to remain in the Defense Department system for about 300 days. Soldiers injured on the battlefield invariably survive, with survival rates well above 95%. The ratio of wounded to dead is arguably 16 to 1, compared with less than 2 to 1during World War Two. Wounds to extremities, burns, blinding, and brain injury are widespread. Advanced armor protects the body’s vital organs against attacks but soldiers’ limbs are exposed, are taking hits, leaving them very mangled and in need of expensive long-term care. Multiple surgeries are common and a number of programs (costing millions) have been established to deal with burns and amputations. What would have killed soldiers in earlier wars is not killing them today, a situation that showcases the full capabilities of the overseas combat medicine system, but simultaneously exacerbates the problem of caring for soldiers at home. This war is clear evidence that as time has progressed, the American military has become better at saving lives but not at avoiding injuries.
Combat medical treatment itself is therefore very important to recognize. Perhaps serendipitously, but probably not, the moment Army Surgeon General Kevin Kiley began speaking of the medical system established between Iraq and the United States, in the wake of the recent reports, he was interrupted by Congress-members questioning him, who cited time constraints. The testimony aired on C-SPAN on March 5th was itself twice interrupted: first for an all but empty House chamber and second for House debate on Water and Sewage reform. In prepared statements regarding medical evacuation from Iraq, the elapsed time that the military said it was able to get wounded home was increased by twelve hours (from 36 to 48 hours) than actual capabilities, with the probable intent of downplaying the evacuation system to make it seem worse than it is. This tactic is focused on downplaying the system’s effectiveness. If it is seen as too good, the system’s effectiveness will be noticed as part of the problem, which is not simply the failure of the long-term healthcare system. The over-efficiency of the medical treatment and evacuation system and the disastrous overseas operations we are involved in contribute as much to this problem as the domestic failures do. Were we not in Iraq for so long, sustaining so many injuries, the system would not be overburdened and would therefore be in no need of remedy. Since we have been and possibly will be overseas for so long, the domestic system must be addressed or the war itself cannot go on.
more...