akaoni 0 Posted November 14, 2007 Link hmmmmmm From the above article: "Let's not somehow pretend or try to convey the false impression that being at war is being safer than being at peace, of course not," said Michael O'Hanlon, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institute. "If we stopped these wars we would cut back our annual military fatalities by close to a thousand people, and that's just simple arithmetic." The numbers, which outline active-duty deaths from 1980 to 2006, show a steady decline in accidents. Experts attribute that decline to campaigns to curb off-duty partying and drunk driving, as well as offering better training before putting troops in hazardous situations. There also are fewer active military members today; the total number of active servicemen and women decreased from a 1986 high of 2.18 million troops to the 2006 level of 1.38 million. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wiffleball 4,797 Posted November 14, 2007 Good Quote: The death-to-wounded ratio has also improved, the study found. Nearly 8 people are wounded for every one who dies in Operation Iraqi Freedom versus the 1 death to 1.7 wound ratio found during World War II. Think about that, with the 30,000 wounded in Iraq and 'Stan, imagine what the death rate would be even if we were at the Vietnam era 3-1 wounded to dead ratio. Safe to say we have the best equipment and people in the whole world when it comes to battlefield trauma care. The thing that isn't getting enough press is the whole 'wounded' issue. Even the language of this war has changed. Used to be, that 'casualty' meant dead OR wounded. Even at the start of the war, the news reported total casualties. When that number got too ugly, I guess the subtly switched to just "dead". But that's unfortunate. #1) Because Americans think of 'wounded' and instantly think of Mel Gibson getting shot in the shoulder and shaking it off like a bee-sting. and #2) Because the very nature of the 'wounded' in Iraq and 'Stan is entirely different than simple small arms fire. Even this article above basically just blows off the 30,000 wounded. I'm guessing the number of men with the types of injuries below is a shiitload higher during wartime than peacetime. But not one mention of that. Right now, there are over one thousand men who'd lost one or more appendages - largely due to IED's. And speaking of IED's: They've caused over 4,000 severe brain injuries. I've worked with brain injuries at Craig Hospital - we're not talking concussions. Worst of all are the burns; I haven't seen anybody publish the numbers, but again, due to IED's, the numbers of severely burned probably exceed the numbers of SBI's and Amputees combined. Luckily, the resources are better now than ever, but those resources are getting overwhelmed. These are the guys I hope we never forget; The guys who - long after the war is over for the politicians and pundits - They'll still be fighting it and living with its effects every day. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wiffleball 4,797 Posted November 14, 2007 Castro, 40, a paratrooper with the 82nd Airborne Division, is one of more than 1,100 veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan — 13% of all seriously wounded casualties — to undergo surgery for damaged eyes. That is the highest percentage for eye wounds in any major conflict dating to World War I, according to research published in the Survey of Ophthalmology. It's a reflection of how eye injuries have become one of the most devastating consequences of a war in which roadside bombs, mortars and grenades are the most commonly used weapons against U.S. troops. Brain injuries and amputations have long been the focus of the damage such weapons are inflicting, but the Army has acknowledged in recent weeks that serious eye wounds have accumulated at almost twice the rate as wounds requiring amputations. Interesting that this story comes out today (usatoday). For those of you doing the math, that's almost 2,000 soldiers who have been fully or partially blinded by IED's. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Angry White Male 0 Posted November 17, 2007 See libs, quit yer bitchin' already. Troops die all the time, regardless of whether in a quagmire in the desert, or in a drunk driving accident here at home. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DAVID RUFFIN 3 Posted November 18, 2007 See libs, quit yer bitchin' already. Troops die all the time, regardless of whether in a quagmire in the desert, or in a drunk driving accident here at home. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites