I've seen a couple of posts recently about american soldiers who refused to serve abroad because of thier feelings about the war in iraq. I thought it was about time that someone mentioned the other side of the coin.

My father is an army doctor in iraq. One of his duties is to send unhealthy patients (whether because of a battle wound, or naturally caused illness) to germany to be treated. Very often these patients will have attached to thier medical records something along the lines that says they are undeployable in the future because of thier medical problems.

My father said, every one of these soldiers that he sends home, tries to convince him that no, it does not matter the health problem, what matters is the fact that the given soldier wants to stay in iraq and serve his country. These soldiers, many who very much miss thier families at home, do not want to be deprieved of the ability to serve thier country.

quote:

"Every one of those soldiers that he sends home, tries to convince him that no, it does not matter the health problem..."

'US troops injured in Iraq have required limb amputations at twice the rate of past wars, and as many as 20 percent have suffered head and neck injuries that may require a lifetime of care, according to new data giving the clearest picture yet of the severity of battlefield wounds.

The data are the grisly flip side of improvements in battlefield medicine that have saved many combatants who would have died in the past: Only 1 in 10 US troops injured in Iraq has died, the lowest rate of any war in US history.

But those who survive have much more grievous wounds. Bulletproof Kevlar vests protect soldiers' bodies but not their limbs, as insurgent snipers and makeshift bombs tear off arms and legs and rip into faces and necks. More than half of those injured sustain wounds so serious they cannot return to duty, according to Pentagon statistics...' Boston Globe (2004)

Isn't your father maybe describing the, perfectly understandable, first stage of dealing with loss - denial?

And of course, almost anyone would prefer to be doing the job they chose in life, rather than being a forgotten welfare recipient - that needn't mean that they support the war. Soldiers, as John Kerry inadvertantly highlighted last year, are reasonably smart. Surely most of them have worked out by now that the fiasco in Iraq has not been serving America.

nnn, I'm not refering to patients, who were injured at war and are sent home. I'm talking about, for example, a patient who comes in for a routine exam and my father will discover a heart problem that needs to be treated immediatly, and will cause the patient to not be allowed to serve in the future in combat situations.

Oh. But you said, "whether because of a battle wound, or naturally caused illness."

I'm sorry, I didn't stste myself clearly. None of the patients my father was refering to were those that lost limbs..... There were some that were sent home because of battle wounds, but not limb losing battle wounds.(i.e. punctured lung....) I don't what the attitude is of those who have lost limbs, because I have never spoken to my father about that, but if you want I can ask him next time I speak to him (though I can't gaurentee how soon it will be.)

quote:

Originally posted by Leppi:
My father said, every one of these soldiers that he sends home, tries to convince him that no, it does not matter the health problem, what matters is the fact that the given soldier wants to stay in iraq and serve his country.

I suspect that this attitude has little to do with patriotism or a desire to 'serve his country' and a lot to do with being a soldier - the sense that he would be leaving his buddies behind. The bond developed between soldiers in combat is pretty intense. Once the bullets start flying, 'politics' and 'patriotism' mean very little.