Army sending injured back to Iraq

Pontiuth Pilate

Republican Jesus!
Joined
Jun 11, 2003
Messages
7,980
Location
Taking stock in the Lord
A total disgrace.

http://www.salon.com/news/2007/03/11/fort_benning/print.html

The Army is ordering injured troops to go to Iraq
At Fort Benning, soldiers who were classified as medically unfit to fight are now being sent to war. Is this an isolated incident or a trend?

By Mark Benjamin

Mar. 11, 2007 | "This is not right," said Master Sgt. Ronald Jenkins, who has been ordered to Iraq even though he has a spine problem that doctors say would be damaged further by heavy Army protective gear. "This whole thing is about taking care of soldiers," he said angrily. "If you are fit to fight you are fit to fight. If you are not fit to fight, then you are not fit to fight."

As the military scrambles to pour more soldiers into Iraq, a unit of the Army's 3rd Infantry Division at Fort Benning, Ga., is deploying troops with serious injuries and other medical problems, including GIs who doctors have said are medically unfit for battle. Some are too injured to wear their body armor, according to medical records.

On Feb. 15, Master Sgt. Jenkins and 74 other soldiers with medical conditions from the 3rd Division's 3rd Brigade were summoned to a meeting with the division surgeon and brigade surgeon. These are the men responsible for handling each soldier's "physical profile," an Army document that lists for commanders an injured soldier's physical limitations because of medical problems -- from being unable to fire a weapon to the inability to move and dive in three-to-five-second increments to avoid enemy fire. Jenkins and other soldiers claim that the division and brigade surgeons summarily downgraded soldiers' profiles, without even a medical exam, in order to deploy them to Iraq. It is a claim division officials deny.

The 3,900-strong 3rd Brigade is now leaving for Iraq for a third time in a steady stream. In fact, some of the troops with medical conditions interviewed by Salon last week are already gone. Others are slated to fly out within a week, but are fighting against their chain of command, holding out hope that because of their ills they will ultimately not be forced to go. Jenkins, who is still in Georgia, thinks doctors are helping to send hurt soldiers like him to Iraq to make units going there appear to be at full strength. "This is about the numbers," he said flatly.

That is what worries Steve Robinson, director of veterans affairs at Veterans for America, who has long been concerned that the military was pressing injured troops into Iraq. "Did they send anybody down range that cannot wear a helmet, that cannot wear body armor?" Robinson asked rhetorically. "Well that is wrong. It is a war zone." Robinson thinks that the possibility that physical profiles may have been altered improperly has the makings of a scandal. "My concerns are that this needs serious investigation. You cannot just look at somebody and tell that they were fit," he said. "It smacks of an overstretched military that is in crisis mode to get people onto the battlefield."

Eight soldiers who were at the Feb. 15 meeting say they were summoned to the troop medical clinic at 6:30 in the morning and lined up to meet with division surgeon Lt. Col. George Appenzeller, who had arrived from Fort Stewart, Ga., and Capt. Aaron K. Starbuck, brigade surgeon at Fort Benning. The soldiers described having a cursory discussion of their profiles, with no physical exam or extensive review of medical files. They say Appenzeller and Starbuck seemed focused on downplaying their physical problems. "This guy was changing people's profiles left and right," said a captain who injured his back during his last tour in Iraq and was ordered to Iraq after the Feb. 15 review.

Appenzeller said the review of 75 soldiers with profiles was an effort to make sure they were as accurate as possible prior to deployment. "As the division surgeon and the senior medical officer in the division, I wanted to ensure that all the patients with profiles were fully evaluated with clear limitations that commanders could use to make the decision whether they could deploy, and if they did deploy, what their limitations would be while there," he said in a telephone interview from Fort Stewart. He said he changed less than one-third of those profiles -- even making some more restrictive -- in order to "bring them into accordance with regulations."

In direct contradiction to the account given by the soldiers, Appenzeller said physical examinations were conducted and that he had a robust medical team there working with him, which is how they managed to complete 75 reviews in one day. Appenzeller denied that the plan was to find more warm bodies for the surge into Baghdad, as did Col. Wayne W. Grigsby Jr., the brigade commander. Grigsby said he is under "no pressure" to find soldiers, regardless of health, to make his unit look fit. The health and welfare of his soldiers are a top priority, said Grigsby, because [the soldiers] are "our most important resource, perhaps the most important resource we have in this country."

Grigsby said he does not know how many injured soldiers are in his ranks. But he insisted that it is not unusual to deploy troops with physical limitations so long as he can place them in safe jobs when they get there. "They can be productive and safe in Iraq," Grigsby said.

The injured soldiers interviewed by Salon, however, expressed considerable worry about going to Iraq with physical deficits because it could endanger them or their fellow soldiers. Some were injured on previous combat tours. Some of their ills are painful conditions from training accidents or, among relatively older troops, degenerative problems like back injuries or blown-out knees. Some of the soldiers have been in the Army for decades.

And while Grigsby, the brigade commander, says he is under no pressure to find troops, it is hard to imagine there is not some desperation behind the decision to deploy some of the sick soldiers. Master Sgt. Jenkins, 42, has a degenerative spine problem and a long scar down the back of his neck where three of his vertebrae were fused during surgery. He takes a cornucopia of potent pain pills. His medical records say he is "at significantly increased risk of re-injury during deployment where he will be wearing Kevlar, body armor and traveling through rough terrain." Late last year, those medical records show, a doctor recommended that Jenkins be referred to an Army board that handles retirements when injuries are permanent and severe.

A copy of Jenkins' profile written after that Feb. 15 meeting and signed by Capt. Starbuck, the brigade surgeon, shows a healthier soldier than the profile of Jenkins written by another doctor just late last year, though Jenkins says his condition is unchanged. Other soldiers' documents show the same pattern.

One female soldier with psychiatric issues and a spine problem has been in the Army for nearly 20 years. "My [health] is deteriorating," she said over dinner at a restaurant near Fort Benning. "My spine is separating. I can't carry gear." Her medical records include the note "unable to deploy overseas." Her status was also reviewed on Feb. 15. And she has been ordered to Iraq this week.

The captain interviewed by Salon also requested anonymity because he fears retribution. He suffered a back injury during a previous deployment to Iraq as an infantry platoon leader. A Humvee accident "corkscrewed my spine," he explained. Like the female soldier, he is unable to wear his protective gear, and like her he too was ordered to Iraq after his meeting with the division surgeon and brigade surgeon on Feb. 15. He is still at Fort Benning and is fighting the decision to send him to Baghdad. "It is a numbers issue with this whole troop surge," he claimed. "They are just trying to get those numbers."

Another soldier contacted Salon by telephone last week expressed considerable anxiety, in a frightened tone, about deploying to Iraq in her current condition. (She also wanted to remain anonymous, fearing retribution.) An incident during training several years ago injured her back, forcing doctors to remove part of her fractured coccyx. She suffers from degenerative disk disease and has two ruptured disks and a bulging disk in her back. While she said she loves the Army and would like to deploy after back surgery, her current injuries would limit her ability to wear her full protective gear. She deployed to Iraq last week, the day after calling Salon.

Her husband, who has served three combat tours in the infantry in Afghanistan and Iraq, said he is worried sick because his wife's protective vest alone exceeds the maximum amount she is allowed to lift. "I have been over there three times. I know what it is like," he told me during lunch at a restaurant here. He predicted that by deploying people like his wife, the brigade leaders are "going to get somebody killed over there." He said there is "no way" Grigsby is going to keep all of the injured soldiers in safe jobs. "All of these people that deploy with these profiles, they are scared," he said. He railed at the command: "They are saying they don't care about your health. This is pathetic. It is bad."

His wife's physical profile was among those reevaluated on Feb. 15. A copy of her profile from late last year showed her health problems were so severe they "prevent deployment" and recommended she be medically retired from the Army. Her profile at that time showed she was unable to wear a protective mask and chemical defense equipment, and had limitations on doing pushups, walking, biking and swimming. It said she can only carry 15 pounds.

Though she says that her condition has not changed since then, almost all of those findings were reversed in a copy of her physical profile dated Feb. 15. The new profile says nothing about a medical retirement, but suggests that she limit wearing a helmet to "one hour at a time."

Spc. Lincoln Smith, meanwhile, developed sleep apnea after he returned from his first deployment to Iraq. The condition is so severe that he now suffers from narcolepsy because of a lack of sleep. He almost nodded off mid-conversation while talking to Salon as he sat in a T-shirt on a sofa in his girlfriend's apartment near Fort Benning.

Smith is trained by the Army to be a truck driver. But since he is in constant danger of falling asleep, military doctors have listed "No driving of military vehicles" on his physical profile. Smith was supposed to fly to Iraq March 9. But he told me on March 8 that he won't go. Nobody has retrained Smith to do anything else besides drive trucks. Plus, because of his condition he was unable to train properly with the unit when the brigade rehearsed for Iraq in January, so he does not feel ready.

Smith needs to sleep with a CPAP (continuous positive airway pressure) machine pumping air into his mouth and nose. "Otherwise," he says, "I could die." But based on his last tour, he is not convinced he will be able to be in places with constant electricity or will be able to fix or replace his CPAP machine should it fail.

He told me last week he would refuse to deploy to Iraq, unsure of what he will be asked to do there and afraid that he will not be taken care of. Since he won't be a truck driver, "I would be going basically as a number," says Smith, who is 32. "They don't have enough people," he says. But he is not going to be one of those numbers until they train him to do something else. "I'm going to go to the airport, and I'm going to tell them I'm not going to go. They are going to give me a weapon. I am going to say, 'It is not a good idea for you to give me a weapon right now.'"

The Pentagon was notified of the reclassification of the Fort Benning soldiers as soon as it happened, according to Master Sgt. Jenkins. He showed Salon an e-mail describing the situation that he says he sent to Army Surgeon General Lt. Gen. Kevin C. Kiley. Jenkins agreed to speak to Salon because he hopes public attention will help other soldiers, particularly younger ones in a similar predicament. "I can't sit back and let this happen to me or other soldiers in my position." But he expects reprisals from the Army.

Other soldiers slated to leave for Iraq with injuries said they wonder whether the same thing is happening in other units in the Army. "You have to ask where else this might be happening and who is dictating it," one female soldier told me. "How high does it go?"
 
Can you believe that John Murtha's bill, which simply states you can't send people who are unfit for combat back to the theater, is being called a "slow bleed" of the war?

Cue horrible, macabre joke centering around the phrase "as opposed to fast bleed."

Because I'm Fair Und Balanced, here's the opposite view from Will Kristol, aka "people who want to keep our wounded at home instead of Iraq are abandoning our troops in the field and tying Preznit Bush's hands":

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/013/292ssqwn.asp

The Democrats' 'Slow-Bleed' Strategy
A disgraceful moment in Congress.
by William Kristol
02/26/2007, Volume 012, Issue 23



Politicians often say foolish things. Members of both parties criticize cavalierly and thunder thoughtlessly. They advance irresponsible suggestions and embrace mistaken policies. But most of our politicians, most of the time, stop short of knowingly hurting the country. Watching developments in Congress this past week, though, one has to ask: Can that be said any longer about the leadership of the Democratic party?...

Top House Democrats, working in concert with anti-war groups, have decided against using congressional power to force a quick end to U.S. involvement in Iraq, and instead will pursue a slow-bleed strategy designed to gradually limit the administration's options. . . . The House strategy is being crafted quietly. . . . [Rep. Jack] Murtha, the powerful chairman of the defense subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee, will seek to attach a provision to an upcoming $93 billion supplemental spending bill for Iraq and Afghanistan. It would restrict the deployment of troops to Iraq unless they meet certain levels of adequate manpower, equipment and training to succeed in combat. That's a standard Murtha believes few of the units Bush intends to use for the surge would be able to meet. . . . Additional funding restrictions are also being considered by Murtha.

So the nonbinding resolution is only the first step in the slow-bleed strategy. The Murtha plan intends to block further relief and reinforcement for American troops, leaving them exposed and unable to succeed. Surely Democrats (and fellow-traveling Republicans) will turn back from this path while they still have time to save some of their honor. But the antiwar groups won't make it easy.

...The national Democratic party has become the puppet of antiwar groups. These groups do not merely accept-reluctantly--American defeat in the Middle East. They seek to hasten it. Some seem to welcome it...

--William Kristol
 
Let me educate you on this a little seeing as how I happen to know something about it.

There are going to be several points.

First. When any unit deploys there are always, and I mean always a handful who will claim to be too broken or hurt to deploy. Some may have legitimate claims...often many dont. Often its a medical condition that they have refused to report earlier because it would mean their dismissal from the military (and their paycheck). I have a situation right now on a battalion deploying from Fort Lewis where I have about 5 senior NCOs claiming to be too hurt to deploy - and yet on their last AMC (annual medical certification) paperwork they put down on paper that they had no significant medical conditions that would keep them from deploying. So the question is which is it? Did they make a false official statement on the AMC? Or are they able to deploy?

Second. The profile system that is mentioned in the story is a 1, 2 or 3 point system used to ascertain the level of a soldiers fitness in a particular area. The word PULHES is used to describe this and for example U means upper extremeties, L means lower extremities and so on. The number that corresponds to a particular letter indicates the level of profile. A 1 being no restriction, a 2 being some restriction and a 3 heavy restriction. If you score a 4 in any area you are pretty much unfit for service.

In my case I have a 2 profile for my lower extremities since I injured my right leg several years ago and now can no longer run at a speed and distance to pass a PT test for running. I do a 2.5 mile alternate walking event instead. While I will probably get disability for this injury when I retire, I am still fit to be deployed. It doesnt keep me from doing my job. I also have a profile in my hearing as I am practically deaf in one ear. I am qualified to wear a hearing aid in that ear, but again...it wouldnt keep me from being deployed or doing my job.

Final point. People with medical conditions in the military are generally expected to return to duty once their injury has healed and they have been rehabilitated. If their injury precludes are return to duty, they they are medically retired from service via what is called the MDRB (Medical Duty Review Board) process. The MDRB is supposed to be the panel of doctors that determines if a soldier is fit for service or not. If not, and there is not a possibility of less strenuous job skill then the person is discharged from the military.

Regardless of what you believe or dont believe I assure you there are most certainly still malingerers in todays military that want all the benefits, but dont want to be deployed. I personally know of one particular SGM that was basically forced to retire because he claimed debilitating injury and didnt deploy - and then was found out to have run a marathon shortly after that.

Believe what you want. But to refer to the army as being a 'total disgrace' without knowing all the facts is just wrong.
 
The people in the article are "malingering liars." Got it.


Seriously. WTH.

No, I said that any story that utterly disregards that such people do exist in the military today is not giving the whole story. I know for a certain fact that they sure as hell do exist and its my job to kick them out.

And for you to deny that such exists only shows your utter ignorance of the situation. You are just more than happy to slurp up more tabloid negative juice as long as it fits in with your mental image of how things are according to PP irregardless of reality.
 
No, I said that any story that utterly disregards that such people do exist in the military today is not giving the whole story. I know for a certain fact that they sure as hell do exist and its my job to kick them out.

And for you to deny that such exists only shows your utter ignorance of the situation. You are just more than happy to slurp up more tabloid negative juice as long as it fits in with your mental image of how things are according to PP irregardless of reality.

You're saying that we should shrug this off as a bunch of cowards who are unwilling to fight. Unless you can come up with quantitative evidence that even a significant minority of those being returned to duty after being injured are faking it, your demeanour is insulting at best.
 
Is the US Army this desperate for manpower?
 
Clearly it is desperate, and this is not the first time this has been mentioned.
This article has a more specific and ominous context.

We can safely ignore Mobboss' non-denial denial.
It is either complete camouflage, or constitutes a smear on the specific individuals named in the article.

So it's either irrelevant, or insulting.
 
You're saying that we should shrug this off as a bunch of cowards who are unwilling to fight. Unless you can come up with quantitative evidence that even a significant minority of those being returned to duty after being injured are faking it, your demeanour is insulting at best.

Nope, I am not saying that at all. What I am saying is this. This is a hit piece story that has both sides denying each others allegations, but it only explores the soldiers side of the story.

It makes no attempt what-so-ever to see if the Army is indeed legitimate in its claims that these soldiers are deployable.

If you read the story and are honest you cant deny that.

As for evidence....I work directly in the field. My office handles administrative separations for soldiers removed from the Army for cause. My evidence is my own experience in dealing with the situation, from both sides. I have both been injured and gone throught the process and in my job I separate malingerers for cause.

That being said I will say this as well. Do some people get a raw deal? Sure. Life isnt fair. Neither is the Army. Hell, I wouldnt want to deploy with a bum leg and deaf ear either...but I would. If the Army gives you lemons....throw them the hell away and go grab a beer.

We can safely ignore Mobboss' non-denial denial.
It is either complete camouflage, or constitutes a smear on the specific individuals named in the article.

So it's either irrelevant, or insulting.

Nope. You just dont want to face the fact that I have 20 years experience in dealing with this type of stuff directly. Ignore the facts of the situation and you merely remain ignorant.
 
Regardless of what you believe or dont believe I assure you there are most certainly still malingerers in todays military that want all the benefits, but dont want to be deployed. I personally know of one particular SGM that was basically forced to retire because he claimed debilitating injury and didnt deploy - and then was found out to have run a marathon shortly after that.

Believe what you want. But to refer to the army as being a 'total disgrace' without knowing all the facts is just wrong.
If I believe you, then the total disgrace is just taking a different form than the story in the OP. I am suprised that you can post such negative things about fellow members of the military without negative consequences.
 
I wonder how many of these injured are ones who want to go back with a passion because they beleive in the mission and take their job seriously. You know the guys who say they want to go back to be with the unit because thats where they belong. There are soldiers who hide injury so they won't be held back from deployment.
 
At the very least, MobbBoss has actual military experience with these kinds of things. That doesn't mean that the first article is untrue, but what MobbBoss said is something to consider as a possibility. Both of you are just stating your opinion based on little or no fact. At least MobbBoss has some experience in the matter.

As for the second article, anyone with half a brain can see that the Murtha action is not about not sending injured troops back to the front. You can read into it, more than what is there, if you want, but that just is not the case. It is about cutting off National Guard-type units and others who have already been deployed and haven't had time to return to full readiness.

I am not taking any particular side, here. It is quite possible, maybe even likely, that they are trying to use injured troops like this. I sure would not put it past them, but the fact is that none of you have anything of real substance to base your opinions on.
 
I wonder how many of these injured are ones who want to go back with a passion because they beleive in the mission and take their job seriously. You know the guys who say they want to go back to be with the unit because thats where they belong. There are soldiers who hide injury so they won't be held back from deployment.

Yeah, I don't know how many stories I've seen of troops losing legs and wanting a high-performance replacement so they can go back to their unit. Of course, just cause they want to go back, doesn't mean that they should be allowed to.
 
At the very least, MobbBoss has actual military experience with these kinds of things. That doesn't mean that the first article is untrue, but what MobbBoss said is something to consider as a possibility. Both of you are just stating your opinion based on little or no fact. At least MobbBoss has some experience in the matter.
The article has quotes from several members of the military, so there is not one military opinion in this thread.
 
The article has quotes from several members of the military, so there is not one military opinion in this thread.

The article was written by a civilian reporter. We've known quite a few of them to make things up in the past or use unsubstantiated information *cough*Dan Rather*cough!
 
I doubt the military would send people useless for duty into a warzone. The military isn't stupid, they know sending unfit soldiers in to fight will only endanger them and their comrades. If some are sent there, it is most likely the result of bureaucratic mistakes, which will be corrected as soon as discovered. MobBoss seems to have some experience in these matters, so there are likely some cases going as he describes also.
 
If I believe you, then the total disgrace is just taking a different form than the story in the OP. I am suprised that you can post such negative things about fellow members of the military without negative consequences.

Negative things? I am not responsible for the crap people do to get themselves in trouble and just like any large group of people, the Army has its fair share of miscreants. There is no shame in stating that fact. The bottom line is just like in that story, the number of people that the story concerns is extremely minor when compared to how many are being deployed with no problems what-so-ever. If you have a battlion/brigade/division of soldiers being deployed you will always get a handful who think they are being treated unfairly. Always. The majority of that number are usually being treated exactly in accordance with army regulations. There are usually very few that have legitimate complaints and are truly being treated unfairly.

However, there is a process in place to handle that as well and it usually comes in the form of an Inspector General complaint and investigation. I didnt see any reference to any such complaint in the story, but in my experience its usually the first place people go to register complaints when they feel they are being treated unfairly. The lack of any such in the story leads me to believe that such complaints were probably made and the findings probably support the unit and not the individual making the complaint.
 
No need to pile on MB. He's just pointing out a legitimate fact: There are always people who try to game the system, and wartime offers more opportunities for that sort of thing than most.

That said, I suspect we are sending troops who are not as fit as we'd like them to be to Iraq. It sucks...but there's just no choice. Even MB will tell you that the Army is too small to do what it's being asked to do...they HAVE to cut some corners in order to meet the demands the civilian authority is tasking them with. Until the demands of the civilian authority change, or the Army is expanded, this kind of thing is inevitable, if regrettable.
 
Woe, how did that happen? Was that a job-related injury? :eek:

Too many times to the firing range. Had a slight hearing loss that has just gotten worse over the years. Its high frequency so its directly attributed to loud noises like explosions.
 
Back
Top Bottom