There are, as you may know, rumors in Washington that the Bush Administration plans to instate a military draft shortly after the innaguration. For most Americans, the draft seems like a distant or unlikely possibility on the horizon. Perhaps that is because most Americans don't completely understand the scope of what's happening in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I urge everyone to read this article which was recently published in the New England Journal of Medicine. Casualties of War — Military Care for the Wounded from Iraq and Afghanistan. While the focus of the article is medical care, for me it was also a sobering look at occupation of Iraq.

The Bush Administration has, since the beginning, hidden the true cost of this war. They rarely talk about the casualties of war, if at all. President Bush has yet to attend a single funeral for a soldier who has died in Iraq. And, when they do discuss the casualties in Iraq, they focus on the number of American soldiers who have died. Over 1,000 soldiers have died in Iraq to date, but that is just part of the picture.

As this article points out, due to medical advances fewer soldiers experience fatal injuries. Therefore, focusing only on the death rate gives Americans a false perception of the magnitude of the war. The reality is that over 10,000 soldiers (higher than when this article was researched) have been seriously wounded or killed in Iraq. More than soldiers have been wounded or killed in Iraq compared to the Revolutionary War. More than 10 times the number of soldiers have been wounded or killed in Iraq compared to the Persian Gulf War.

For every American soldier killed in Iraq, nine others have been wounded and survived -- the highest rate of any war in U.S. history.

The faces of these soldiers, is absent from our media. Over 10,000 soldiers coming back to the United States. They may be missing a leg, or an arm. In some cases soldiers that have lost two or even three extremities are living to tell about it. How many of these 10,000 have you seen on the nightly news?

The article raises another important point, and that is that the military might simply not have enough surgeons to maintain the level of medical care that is keeping so many of these soldiers alive. To quote the article:

The Army is estimated to have only 120 general surgeons on active duty and a similar number in the reserves. It has therefore sought to keep no more than 30 to 50 general surgeons and 10 to 15 orthopedic surgeons in Iraq.

And what will happen when those surgeons in the reserves have completed their duty? That brings us back to the draft. Unlikely? Decide for yourself.

Posted by David at December 13, 2004 05:32 PM | TrackBack