Insomnia (insomnia) wrote,

USA Today adds up the cold, hard facts...

I've been saying it for some time now, but USA Today finally ran the stats and reached the inevitable conclusion... the proportion and severity of US wounded in Iraq is significantly greater than in prior wars.

Since the Iraq war began in March, one American servicemember has been killed for every seven injured in combat, as opposed to wars from last century, where that number was closer to one death for every two wounded.

That's good news, you might say. More US soldiers are coming home alive.

True, but to what kind of life? Should we judge a war by how many US soldiers are killed, when the number of wounded is proportionally much greater? If our battlefield medicine hadn't advanced so significantly, we'd be looking at a War on Terror which would have claimed the lives of approximately1150 US servicemen by now. Instead, we're currently at around 437 dead US servicemen and approxinately 3000 wounded during the War on Terror, with no end in sight.

And meanwhile as more and more wounded veterans come home, Bush has threatenned to veto a bill to increase their benefits, and has stuck it to the soldiers and wounded veterans in ways too numerous to mention. His goal appears to be to make sure that paying for all the wounded soldiers coming home doesn't inconvenience his tax cuts and kickbacks to the rich. Perhaps he should have thought of that before he dragged our country into war.

  • Post a new comment


    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.