An Overlooked Cost of the War in Iraq

keysersoze

Star
Registered
(I posted this in the main board - might get more thoughts on this forum)
I want the US troops out of Iraq ...
Not because I don't want the Iraqi people to live in freedom,
Not because I don't want the U.S. to continue the war on terror,

But because of the toll it has had, and continues to have, on many Americans soldiers who have died or gotten terribly injured like this guy below:


25injured01_650.jpg

Shurvon Phillip, right, who has been unable to speak and can barely move since he was injured in Iraq, with his his mother, Gail Ulerie; his nephew, Malik; and his niece, Kyla.

25injured02_650.jpg

Keeping Hope Alive Shurvon’s mother has been his greatest advocate and believer.

25injured03_450.jpg

The Relearning Process Therapy at the V.A. hospital in Cleveland. The hope is that Shurvon’s remaining brain cells can be taught motor skills.

The Sergeant Lost Within

“You want to wear this or this for therapy tomorrow?” Sgt. Shurvon Phillip’s mother asked, holding two shirts in front of him. On one wall of his bedroom hung a poster of a marine staring fiercely, assault rifle in hand and black paint beneath his narrow eyes. Shurvon’s eyes, meanwhile, are wide and soft brown. He sat upright, supported by the tilt of a hospital bed. He cannot speak and can barely emit sound or move any part of his body, and sometimes it’s as if the striking size of his eyes is a desperate attempt to let others understand who he is, to let them see inside his mind, because his brain can carry out so little in the way of communication.

He gazed at the two shirts and, with excruciating effort and several seconds’ delay, managed to jab his gnarled right hand a few inches toward his choice, a black pullover with writing on the front. White letters declared the man, and a white arrow pointed upward to his head; red letters proclaimed the legend, and a red arrow pointed downward to his groin.

Gail Ulerie, Shurvon’s mother, had already received his O.K. — a painstaking raising of his eyebrows — on a pair of jeans. Mostly, Shurvon can answer only yes-or-no questions. The slightly lifted brows, a gesture that stretches his eyes yet wider, signify yes. A slow lowering of his lids indicates no. Now, with tomorrow’s clothes decided, Gail, a Trinidadian-American, reclined Shurvon’s bed for the night. He wore a hospital gown and tube socks pulled up tightly on the twigs of his caramel-colored shins. The socks were immaculately white, as if Gail believed that if everything were properly and precisely attended to, right down to the cotton that sheathed his toes, her son’s brain could recover.

In Iraq’s Anbar Province, in May 2005, Shurvon, who joined the Marine reserves seven years earlier at 17, partly as a way to pay his community-college tuition, was riding back to his base after a patrol when an anti-tank mine exploded under his Humvee. The Humvee’s other soldiers were tossed in different directions and dealt an assortment of injuries: concussions, broken bones, herniated discs. Along with a broken jaw and a broken leg, Shurvon suffered one of the war’s signature wounds on the American side: though no shrapnel entered his head, the blast rattled his brain profoundly.

Read Rest of Article in NY Times Mag...


I am getting tired of being sad when I read these accounts and beginning to become more angry about it as one of my central reasons for U.S. troops should pull out of Iraq - too many war casualties such as this guy Shurvon that while not a statistic like a death are essentially just as hard on a family, if not more so because of their serious injuries. Too many poor white, black, brown people getting screwed over because of all of this... this dude essentially joined to help pay for his community college tuition and in return he got dealt this fate for his service? :smh::smh:

Everyone wants to talk about terrorism and Iraqi democracy, thats fine and all but war casualties are so often overlooked that its as if the war is happening without them.:angry:

Just wanted to bring this to attention.
 
You make it hard for one to make a "Rational" and "Un-emotional" argument with the story and pictures of Sgt. Phillips. But lets be honest, wars are fought with the reality that there will be many, many civilians and soldiers injured and killed. Injury and death is not only a by-product of war but it is the "Object" of war, as well. Hence, since injury and death is THE OBJECT of war, the decision to enter or end a war based on the fact that soldiers are being injured and killed must be one of two things: (1) the odds are such that the enemy either will or will not capitulate or can or cannot be defeated through the use of military force; or, (2) you simply have not the stomach for war. Number 1 is (or should be) based on rational and objective analysis. Number 2 is based on, the emotions.

QueEx
 
The only point I see in this post is every soldier should be forced to have a living will. I don't think many would have chosen to be kept alive in this way if asked the day, the week, the month, or year before they got injured.
 
Interesting point. I wonder if they talk about living wills earlier on? In one sense I can see why it might not be a subject people want to deal with immediately before deployment - since optimism can supplant reality, that is, the desire to think positively about the outcome (hey, I'm going to be okay; I know I'll be back) as opposed to the reality that there is more than a mere chance or likelihood that I might be seriously injured.

Personally, I wouldn't want to carry-on in the state that Sgt. Phillips appears to be in the photos. I have a problem with such a heavy burden on others where the chance of the burden ever falling back into my hands appears, remote.

QueEx
 
No, LOL. I'm not so sure that one can be "ordered or forced" to execute a living will. Ordered and forced seems to take away the voluntariliness implied in the word "Will".

QueEx
 
Forcing a servicemember to express their free "Will" isn't exactly inconsistent with current military culture.
 
You make it hard for one to make a "Rational" and "Un-emotional" argument with the story and pictures of Sgt. Phillips. But lets be honest, wars are fought with the reality that there will be many, many civilians and soldiers injured and killed. Injury and death is not only a by-product of war but it is the "Object" of war, as well. Hence, since injury and death is THE OBJECT of war, the decision to enter or end a war based on the fact that soldiers are being injured and killed must be one of two things: (1) the odds are such that the enemy either will or will not capitulate or can or cannot be defeated through the use of military force; or, (2) you simply have not the stomach for war. Number 1 is (or should be) based on rational and objective analysis. Number 2 is based on, the emotions.

QueEx

Good points as usual Que.

I'm just throwing out information that may influence the second element of your calculus of war: (2) you simply have not the stomach for war.

I think average Americans, don't see or read about these casualties of war enough.

In fact, there has been a purposely effort by the Bush Administration to block or prevent this information from being spread on the media.

I think if the American public saw this information, they'd be more willing to end the war in Iraq and bring troops back.
 
Good points as usual Que.

I'm just throwing out information that may influence the second element of your calculus of war: (2) you simply have not the stomach for war.

I think average Americans, don't see or read about these casualties of war enough.

In fact, there has been a purposely effort by the Bush Administration to block or prevent this information from being spread on the media.

I think if the American public saw this information, they'd be more willing to end the war in Iraq and bring troops back.
What if you believed and continue to believe that invading Iraq and continuing to be in Iraq is critical to our safety? Would the American public be correct in wanting to withdraw or end the war because it got to see the destruction and death ??? If you say yes, what about our safety ???

QueEx
 
What if you believed and continue to believe that invading Iraq and continuing to be in Iraq is critical to our safety? Would the American public be correct in wanting to withdraw or end the war because it got to see the destruction and death ??? If you say yes, what about our safety ???

QueEx

Thats the dilemma.

Iraq was not a threat to our security when we invaded but we were sold on the idea that it was a threat.

There is an arguable case that it is NOW a threat to our security.

I'd like to know what you consider those threats?

The one that I can think of is a small group of terrorists training in Iraq who decide to hit US interests in the Middle East or even the US.

With that, I'd like to say that the best thing might be some sort of tactical strikes on their training camps/bases or have good intelligence work to undermine their efforts.

Just my thoughts.




 
Thats the dilemma.

Iraq was not a threat to our security when we invaded but we were sold on the idea that it was a threat.

There is an arguable case that it is NOW a threat to our security.

I'd like to know what you consider those threats?

Presumably you're asking what I thought of the threat before the invasion? If so, see, my comments throughout:

Liberal Media?, White-Out of bush’s Impeachable Offense!!!
http://www.bgol.us/board/showthread.php?t=36440&highlight=liberal+media+impeachment

If you're asking what do I consider the threats now? - I think there was (and quite possible still is) a grave threat that OBL and/or his loyalist can establish in Iraq what we took from them in Afghanistan. I don't think there is credible evidence that such was possible before the invasion, but I do believe that there was growing evidence that the OBL'ist could and will set up camp in Western Iraq.

I don't believe that we should have gone into Iraq. On the other hand, since we did, I think we had an obligation, if not a duty, to do it right. That said, it was obvious to many then as it is now that one major thing we did wrong was fail to put enough boots on the ground. If you look at it objectively, the "Surge" tends to prove that point. But troop strength aside, there is another glaring point: One group (the Sunni) had oppressed the other (the Shia). Who would believe that the Shia, the majority of Iraq, would simply forgive and forget? Who would believe that every thing would be cake and ice cream when the Shia realized what power was coming into their hands? What did we think was going to happen ??? (and I don't buy G.W.'s view that we would be welcomed as liberators).

The one that I can think of is a small group of terrorists training in Iraq who decide to hit US interests in the Middle East or even the US.

With that, I'd like to say that the best thing might be some sort of tactical strikes on their training camps/bases or have good intelligence work to undermine their efforts.
Once again, I am assuming you mean terrorist that would be left in Iraq or would come to Iraq after the U.S. withdraws.

The way I see it, if the OBL'ist can keep the Sunni fighting the Shia; deny others Western Iraq; and force a U.S. withrawal, it will have won a major personal victory. While not the Caliphate it prophesizes, it would be Afghanistan re-incarnate and something it could argue that it took from the Great Satan. You gotta admit, that would be a major boost for their cause. There would be no peace in the valley (the U.S., Israel, Jordan, Saudi Arabia or Egypt), therefore, pacification would be a must. Hence, we stay and really do the damn thing or we come back and, do the damn thing. Iraq is Pandora's box or the Genie in the Bottle -- once out, its hard as hell to put back again.

Please also note the happenings in Lebanon lately (that are receiving little press right now). There is evidence that OBL is pushing a battle between the Sunni and the Iranians and their Shia surrogates, Hezbollah in Lebanon. Strangely, the U.S. and other westerners tend to support the Sunni elements.

enough.

QueEx
 
Forcing a servicemember to express their free "Will" isn't exactly inconsistent with current military culture.

C/S. That "Ain't nothin' gonna happen to me" attitude is one of the reasons they joined. People who think for themselves never sign up; just people who like being told what to do. Sad but true.
 
C/S. That "Ain't nothin' gonna happen to me" attitude is one of the reasons they joined. People who think for themselves never sign up; just people who like being told what to do. Sad but true.
I'm not so sure thats what Greed meant but I feel certain he can speak for himself.

On the other hand, I totally disagree with: "People who think for themselves never sign up; just people who like being told what to do." We've had voluntary military service since around 1970 and its reputed to be made up of some of the better minds. Intelligence doesn't necessarily mean free will (geeks can be sheep) but the fact that they chose to enlist knowing that there could be grave danger and the fact that so many re-enlist in the face of that present danger tells me, at least (as one of those who gave voluntary service in the past), that enlistee's for the most part aren't people just waiting and needing to be told. That tells me they're deciders; and that chose danger or adventure over a lot of other choices.

Some will argue: an untold number of volunteers did so to earn money for college and never meant to fight in a war. Whether or not thats the case, the first thing that comes to mind is that they used their free will to attempt to earn money to use their free will to do something else. Again, doesn't seem like sheep to me.

QueEx
 
Presumably you're asking what I thought of the threat before the invasion? If so, see, my comments throughout:

Liberal Media?, White-Out of bush’s Impeachable Offense!!!
http://www.bgol.us/board/showthread.php?t=36440&highlight=liberal+media+impeachment

If you're asking what do I consider the threats now? - I think there was (and quite possible still is) a grave threat that OBL and/or his loyalist can establish in Iraq what we took from them in Afghanistan. I don't think there is credible evidence that such was possible before the invasion, but I do believe that there was growing evidence that the OBL'ist could and will set up camp in Western Iraq.

I don't believe that we should have gone into Iraq. On the other hand, since we did, I think we had an obligation, if not a duty, to do it right. That said, it was obvious to many then as it is now that one major thing we did wrong was fail to put enough boots on the ground. If you look at it objectively, the "Surge" tends to prove that point. But troop strength aside, there is another glaring point: One group (the Sunni) had oppressed the other (the Shia). Who would believe that the Shia, the majority of Iraq, would simply forgive and forget? Who would believe that every thing would be cake and ice cream when the Shia realized what power was coming into their hands? What did we think was going to happen ??? (and I don't buy G.W.'s view that we would be welcomed as liberators).


Once again, I am assuming you mean terrorist that would be left in Iraq or would come to Iraq after the U.S. withdraws.

The way I see it, if the OBL'ist can keep the Sunni fighting the Shia; deny others Western Iraq; and force a U.S. withrawal, it will have won a major personal victory. While not the Caliphate it prophesizes, it would be Afghanistan re-incarnate and something it could argue that it took from the Great Satan. You gotta admit, that would be a major boost for their cause. There would be no peace in the valley (the U.S., Israel, Jordan, Saudi Arabia or Egypt), therefore, pacification would be a must. Hence, we stay and really do the damn thing or we come back and, do the damn thing. Iraq is Pandora's box or the Genie in the Bottle -- once out, its hard as hell to put back again.

Please also note the happenings in Lebanon lately (that are receiving little press right now). There is evidence that OBL is pushing a battle between the Sunni and the Iranians and their Shia surrogates, Hezbollah in Lebanon. Strangely, the U.S. and other westerners tend to support the Sunni elements.

enough.

QueEx

Que,

I totally & respectfully disagree with you on keeping troops there to "finish" the job as per your 'pandora's box' analogy.

I'm sure you read accounts of the Sunnis resistant to the OBL supporters and turning against them. Currently, the OBL supporters or AQ have resorted to attacking moderate Sunnis and other Sunni tribal leaders because they realize that those Sunnis are turning against them.

I say let the Sunnis in Western Iraq deal with them.

Second, the American people are not serious about ending the war in Iraq - even McCain.

Currently, you have most of the US Army doing security in the country - its not out there actively hunting for those terrorists. Its waiting for them to come to it and engage it.

Thats a BS strategy because it only makes more and more Iraqis come out to attack them.

So unless we put another 200,000 troops in there to really do the job right - its better we get out than do a half ass job that
1. Gets more Americans killed.
2. Still does not stop terrorists like OBL followers.
 
Que,

I totally & respectfully disagree with you on keeping troops there to "finish" the job as per your 'pandora's box' analogy.
No you don't; and your last comments demonstrate that they are more in harmony with mine.

I'm sure you read accounts of the Sunnis resistant to the OBL supporters and turning against them. Currently, the OBL supporters or AQ have resorted to attacking moderate Sunnis and other Sunni tribal leaders because they realize that those Sunnis are turning against them.

I say let the Sunnis in Western Iraq deal with them.
Hear, hear.

As I understand it, the Sunni turnabout against OBL has come with U.S. aid, assistance and urging. And, its speaks volumes of how we had a policy of failure going in. We have long needed a sensible policy for dealing with the Sunni's. Its not like we didn't know they would feel put-out and put-down if Saddam, the source of their unequal power, was taken down.

Second, the American people are not serious about ending the war in Iraq - even McCain.
There are people on both sides of the issue on this one. Even if, however, there was unanimity to withdraw, common sense says it would have to be phased (you can't just move 100K plus soldiers in a minute without exposing them to danger).

Currently, you have most of the US Army doing security in the country - its not out there actively hunting for those terrorists. Its waiting for them to come to it and engage it.

Thats a BS strategy because it only makes more and more Iraqis come out to attack them.
You may have better knowledge of troop deployment and tactics than I do. I wouldn't presume to know what the Army's current strategy is. But, if it was clearly discernible to me, perhaps, it would be equally as discernible to the enemy as well. That might not be a good thing.

So unless we put another 200,000 troops in there to really do the job right - its better we get out than do a half ass job that
1. Gets more Americans killed.
2. Still does not stop terrorists like OBL followers.
What ever the troop mix or level, if there is a reasonable likelihood that we can bring this matter to a reasonable end, lets get at it. Otherwise, the status quo (especially before the surge) is just unacceptable, too costly in terms of money and lives, and needs to be wound down so that we can try to get on with repairing the damage.

QueEx
 
Back
Top