Pentagon Intentionally Hiding 1/2 of Iraq Injured and Wounded

[Hissyspit]

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2007/02/pentagon-intentionally-hiding-12-of.html

Monday, February 19, 2007
Pentagon intentionally hiding 1/2 of Iraq injured and wounded -- no wonder the health care budget for those troops isn't enough
by John in DC · 2/19/2007 07:47:00 PM ET

I've been asking myself the last two days why the Pentagon and George Bush's White House dont seem to have asked for enough money to provide for the health care needs of all of our injured and wounded vets coming back from Iraq and Afghanistan.

Did they not know how many of our soldiers would be hurt and live? Or, did they know the number of injured and wounded who would return, but didn't tell congress because that would require admitting that the "real" cost of the war is, at the very least, several times more expensive than what we've already spent? Or is it that the Pentagon and White House folks handling all of this are simply inept morons?

It seems to be option 2, cover-up.

First, here is what Harvard Professor Linda Bilmes uncovered:

The central argument of the new Bilmes paper is that so many soldiers are being injured that the costs of caring for them over their lifetimes is likely to be $350 billion, or up to twice that, depending on how long the war lasts. The high cost is the result of huge advances in military medicine that have greatly reduced the chances that a soldier injured in Iraq will die. As a result, the ratio of injuries to deaths — 16:1 by her estimate — is higher than in any other war in U.S. history. (By comparison, in Vietnam the ratio was 2.8:1 and in World War II the ratio was 1.6:1.)

So there you have it. The Pentagon and the White House know perfectly well how many wounded and injured we have and how much it's going to cost. They're simply lying about the numbers so as to keep the public in the dark, and buck up support for the war. Sure, it screws our injured and maimed vets because there's now not enough money to provide them with the health care they need and deserve. But hey, no one ever said the Pentagon and the White House really gave a damn about the troops, so why start now?

MORE AT LINK

ORIGINAL ARTICLE:

http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2007/01/30/injuries

Shooting the Messenger

Linda J. Bilmes, a lecturer in public policy at Harvard University, calls her latest paper “pretty dry.” That hasn’t prevented it from riling high-ranking Pentagon officials — who called her and her dean to complain about her work. When they questioned her sources of material, they ran into a bit of a problem: She did most of her research with data on federal Web sites. So what did the Pentagon do? It changed the Web sites, and now continues to trash her research.

- snip -

The story begins with a paper Bilmes wrote last year with Joseph E. Stiglitz, a Columbia University professor and Nobel laureate in economics. In their study, they found that the Bush administration has seriously underestimated the economic costs of the war in Iraq. After the study was publicized, Bilmes was approached by some experts on veterans’ benefits who said that one cost of the war hadn’t received enough attention in their work (or from the government): the costs of caring for veterans injured in the conflict.

And that’s the question that led Bilmes to prepare a 21-page study that she presented this month in Chicago at the Allied Social Sciences Association meeting. The presentation of “Soldiers Returning From Iraq and Afghanistan: The Long-Term Costs of Providing Veterans Medical Care and Disability Benefits” went off without controversy and might have escaped Pentagon notice. But Bilmes also published an op-ed version of her findings in the Los Angeles Times. The Pentagon did notice that piece.

The central argument of the new Bilmes paper is that so many soldiers are being injured that the costs of caring for them over their lifetimes is likely to be $350 billion, or up to twice that, depending on how long the war lasts. The high cost is the result of huge advances in military medicine that have greatly reduced the chances that a soldier injured in Iraq will die. As a result, the ratio of injuries to deaths — 16:1 by her estimate — is higher than in any other war in U.S. history. (By comparison, in Vietnam the ratio was 2.8:1 and in World War II the ratio was 1.6:1.)

MORE AT LINK

WONKETTE ARTICLE:

http://wonkette.com/politics/pentagon/pentagon-launches-global-war-on-harvard-researcher-232615.php

Turns out the VA “misunderstood” the DoD numbers, because the Pentagon doesn’t want anybody adding up the 25,000 or so troops hurt in “non combat” situations to the 22,000 or so it admits have been injured in battle.

Blimes says it hardly matters if somebody falls off a ladder or gets blown apart by insurgents — if they survive, they will be in the VA health-care system for the rest of their lives. A soldier shot by “friendly fire” is no less hurt than one hit by whoever it is we’re supposedly fighting over there.

[Monkeyman]

1. Here we go body count in reverse Vietnam

[PDJane]

2. Not to worry.

The injuries won't kill them, but the depleted uranium will.

The body count is now at 13,000 or so from the first gulf war. Considering the body count during the war was something like 700 or so, this is outrageous.

[oldtimecanuk]

3. No way, I can't beieve that they would do this.... Where are you getting...

your information? This just can't be true, our Pentagon would not do this! I'm sure of that!
:sarcasm:

ww

[proud patriot]

4. Disgraceful

:grr:

[magellan]

5. "lying ... so as to keep the public in the dark, and buck up support for the war."

At the expense of our troops, as usual.

It just occurred to me -- I haven't mentioned lately how much I HATE HATE HATE the lying filth squatting in our WH!!