The Economic Costs of the 50,000 Wounded Iraq War Soldiers

Linda Bilmes of Harvard University, coauthor with Joseph Stiglitz of the report, "The Economic Cost of the Iraq War: An Appraisal," on the direct economic costs from treating the wounded in the war in Iraq:

The battle of Iraq's wounded by Linda Bilmes, Commentary, LA Times: The new year brought with it the 3,000th American death in Iraq. But what's equally alarming — and far less well known — is that for every fatality in Iraq, there are 16 injuries. That's ... unprecedented... In the Vietnam and Korean wars, by contrast, there were fewer than three people wounded for each fatality. In World Wars I and II, there were less than two.

That means we now have more than 50,000 wounded Iraq war soldiers. In one sense, this reflects positive change: Better medical care and stronger body armor are enabling many more soldiers to survive injuries... But like so much else about this war, the Bush administration failed to foresee what it would mean, failed to plan for the growing tide of veterans who would be in urgent need of medical and disability care. The result is that as the Iraq war approaches its fourth anniversary, the Department of Veterans Affairs is buckling under a growing volume of disability claims and rising demand for medical attention.

So far, more than 200,000 veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan have been treated at VA medical facilities — three times what the VA projected... More than one-third of them have been diagnosed with mental health conditions, including post-traumatic stress disorder, acute depression and substance abuse. Thousands more have crippling disabilities such as brain or spinal injuries. In each of the last two years, the VA has underestimated the number of veterans who would seek help and the cost of treating them — forcing it to go cap in hand to Congress for billions of dollars in emergency funding.

The VA system has a reputation for high-quality care, but waiting lists to see a doctor at some facilities now run as long as several months. Shortages are particularly acute in mental health care. Dr. Frances Murphy, the VA's deputy undersecretary for health, recently wrote that some VA clinics do not provide mental health or substance abuse care, or if they do, "waiting lists render that care virtually inaccessible."

The VA also runs Vet Centers — 207 walk-in neighborhood help centers that provide counseling to veterans and their families. These popular, low-cost centers have already treated 144,000 new veterans. But they are so understaffed that nearly half are sending veterans who need individual therapy into group sessions or placing them on waiting lists...

The situation is about to go from bad to worse. Of the 1.4 million service members involved in the war effort from the beginning, 900,000 are still deployed on active duty. Once they are discharged, the demands for medical care and counseling will skyrocket, as will the number of benefit claims. The Veterans for America organization projects that VA medical centers may need to treat up to 750,000 more returning Iraq and Afghan war veterans and that half a million veterans may visit the Vet Centers.

And then there is the cost. After the Persian Gulf War in 1991, half of all veterans sought VA medical care, and 44% filed disability claims. Assuming that this pattern is repeated, the lifetime cost of providing disability payments and healthcare to Iraq and Afghan war veterans will likely cost U.S. taxpayers between $300 billion and $600 billion, depending on how long the war lasts.

President Bush is now talking about spending more money on recruiting in order to boost the size of the Army and deploy more troops to Iraq. But what about taking care of those soldiers when they return home? The VA's solution is to hire an additional 1,000 claims adjudicators to cut the backlog. ...

One of the first votes facing the new Democratic-controlled Congress will be another "supplemental" budget request for $100 billion-plus to keep the war going. The last Congress approved a dozen such requests with barely a peep, afraid of "not supporting our troops." If the new Congress really wants to support our troops, it should start by spending a few more pennies on the ones who have already fought and come home.

Democrats should take care of this at the first opportunity. No matter what it does to the budget, veterans in need of care should get it.

Comments

[maria]

If the marvelous Democrats had any guts they'd stop this tragedy by stopping the war which they could do by cutting off funding. But with rare exceptions [who have no following] they have no guts and have gotten stuck in the mire of Iraq as much as the rest of the Congress. Meanwhile as they stand helplessly impotent, Bush is planning on sending more troops to be killed and wounded. PS You don't see much if any discussion of the wounded in the glorious US media except for an occasional piece saying how "heroic" some of the wounded are.

[maria]

I posted this link on another topic but will do so here again since Buchanan is spot on. Telling it like it is.

http://www.antiwar.com/pat/?articleid=10267

[James Killus]

Maria,
The troops now in Iraq are actually hostages, with an Administration that is perfectly willing to let them die in order to score political points at home. There may be some magical budgetary magic that could force a troop withdrawal, but the Bush administration has shown itself perfectly capaple of blithly moving money from one budget catagory to another, illegally, basically daring Congress to impeach him for it. Until impeachment becomes a real possibility, the hostages remain hostages, and cutting off funds would be turning their fates completely over to the whims of Bush and and war gods of the Middle East.

Every day until Jan. 20 2009 is a constitutional crisis in the U.S. The Democrats can only hope that the supply of band-aids doesn't run out.

[howard]

actually, i don't see any way that the dems can stop the war: sure, they could pass a budget that stripped away iraq funding as of "x" date.

bush would veto it.

the veto would not be overriden.

that said, of course it is a priority to fund the needs of wounded veterans.

and the bush administration is thanking its lucky stars for the advances in battlefield medical triage and protective gear: otherwise, the number of deaths would be much higher, and funding for the war could be cut off as of "x" date.

while i don't have the cite handy, i recall reading that on a ratio basis, we have the same number of killed-and-wounded-per-total-force level that we had in vietnam; it's simply that the ratio of wounded-to-killed is much higher thanks to the advances.

[fiskhusjim]

"But like so much else about this war, the Bush administration failed to foresee what it would mean, failed to plan for the growing tide of veterans who would be in urgent need of medical and disability care."

NOT TRUE!!!

There is a Bush plan for this exigency - it involves denying responsibility for it and rejecting appropriations for it.

As with everything else, Bush expects his victims to pay for his damage to them. And, why not, it's how his family has done business for over a hundred years.

[Brian]

The good thing is, supporting our troops in such a way would give us much deserved praise and good press. It's not a primary concern, but it's still considerable, and for once, it's an area where good politics and good service correlate.

[anne]

Linda Bilmes:

"The new year brought with it the 3,000th American death in Iraq. But what's equally alarming — and far less well known — is that for every fatality in Iraq, there are 16 injuries. That's ... unprecedented... In the Vietnam and Korean wars, by contrast, there were fewer than three people wounded for each fatality. In World Wars I and II, there were less than two...."

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/11/washington/11veterans.html?ex=1318219200&en=57988c04bbbbd7d4&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

October 11, 2006

Data Suggests Vast Costs Loom in Disability Claims
By SCOTT SHANE

Nearly one in five soldiers leaving the military after serving in Iraq and Afghanistan has been at least partly disabled as a result of service, according to documents of the Department of Veterans Affairs obtained by a Washington research group.

The number of veterans granted disability compensation, more than 100,000 to date, suggests that taxpayers have only begun to pay the long-term financial cost of the two conflicts. About 567,000 of the 1.5 million American troops who have served so far have been discharged.

"The trend is ominous," said Paul Sullivan, director of programs for Veterans for America, an advocacy group, and a former V.A. analyst.

Mr. Sullivan said that if the current proportions held up over time, 400,000 returning service members could eventually apply for disability benefits when they retired....

[anne]

http://select.nytimes.com/2006/05/04/opinion/04herbert.html

May 4, 2006

When Warriors Come Home
By BOB HERBERT

The truth is that the suffering comes in myriad forms. I spoke by phone this week with Stefanie Pelkey, a former Army captain who lives in Spring, Tex., with her 3-year-old son, Benjamin. Her husband, Michael, a captain with the First Armored Division, was sent to Iraq just a few weeks after Benjamin was born. Michael was a big man, 6 feet 4½ inches tall, who loved to play golf and, like President Bush, ride his bicycle.

When Captain Pelkey left Iraq and rejoined his family in the summer of 2003, he seemed "really agitated," Ms. Pelkey recalled. He was hyper-vigilant, she said, and insisted on keeping a loaded 9 mm pistol by the bed in their home in Lawton, Okla.

In testimony last year before a presidential commission examining the nation's mental health system, Ms. Pelkey said, "If only the military community had reached out to family members in some manner to prepare them for, and make them aware of, the symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder, my family's tragedy could have been averted."

Captain Pelkey's distress intensified over a period of several months. He became unusually forgetful. He developed high blood pressure and chest pains. Eventually he began to experience nightmares. He sought medical help, but it was a long time before anyone discussed the possibility of depression, or explored a possible link between the captain's symptoms and his experiences in Iraq.

A civilian family therapist eventually told Captain Pelkey that he was suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder and recommended that he be put on medication. Ms. Pelkey said her husband seemed hopeful after receiving the diagnosis, but just a week later he shot himself to death in their living room....

[pgl]

Of course, Speaker Pelosi just reinstated PAYGO. So let's say doing this will cost $10 billion a year. Where do we get the money? Hmmm. Stopping the war now reduces spending by about $100 billion a year. There you go!

[maria]

I liked especially two sentences from Buchanan's piece:

The final sentence: "Meanwhile, brave young Americans, the true idealists and the casualties of the neocon's war, come home in caskets, 20 a week, to Dover, and, at Walter Reed, learn to walk again on steel legs."

Then his Bismark quote: "Preventive war is like committing suicide out of fear of death."

One of the nicest things about Pat is that as a former Presidential speech writer, he knows how to use the English language for full effect.

[anne]

PGL is right in essence; the cost of Iraq has gone from $8 billion a month in fiscal 2005 to $10 billion monthly in 2006, and is running $14 billion in 2007. The appropriation request for this year is $170 billion. Notice the increasing cost and remember that this is only the direct cost of operations in Iraq. A small allocation for Afghanistan will be included in the budget.

[Richard]

I am expecting the worst. I am expecting that the larger motifs of Vietnam will be repeated, at least domestically:

(1) The belief by veterans that the nation as a whole "doesn't care" about them and doesn't understand what happened "over there".

(2) A nasty runup of inflation five to ten years after ending our participation.

(3) Underfunding of veterans benefits (due to (2) and fueling further the belief in (1)).

(4) Support for empty gestures dignifying the soldier as a nostaligic support for the war (remember the still-flying MIA-POW flags?)

(5) Support for the VA on the part of liberals.

(6) A gradual move towards 99% of the electorate believing that the war was a mistake of vast proportions.

[Peter Schaeffer]

The Iraq Coalition Casualty Count site contains some actual statistics on the costs of the war so far. Take a look at the actual numbers. They raise serious questions about the honesty or accuracy of Linda Blimes and by inference Stiglitz as well.

So far the total number of wounded soldiers is 22,057 not 50,000. Of the wounded, 12,572 returned to duty in 72 hours of less. 10,142 were not able to do so. The 10,000 unable to return to duty are a roughly 3:1 ratio versus fatalities. This makes Iraq comparable to earlier wars, not drastically different.

The same site lists 6,640 non-hostile injuries and 18,183 cases of disease (serious enough to require medical air transport). For better or worse, non-hostile injuries occur in the military both in peacetime and in war. The same holds for disease. In the absence of disease/injury statistics for the peacetime military it is hard to tell how much incremental impact Iraq has had.

The Iraq war is bad enough without playing games to make it seem worse than it is. Honesty, accuracy, and full disclosure should be the rule.

[maria]

The Iraq Coalition Casualty Count relies upon Pentagon information and British War Department info. I am in no position to determine how correct the figures are but I would be very suspicious about taking those kinds of sources at face value. After all the Pentagon at the beginning said it would probably spread lies about military matters if it thought they would serve its purpose. Are you saying that Blimes and Stiglitz are liars ? Or that they have fabricated their information. What evidence do you have for that?

[Bruce Hall]

I'd like to offer up a slightly different perspective about the 3,000 killed in Iraq versus the 58,000 killed in Vietnam:

http://hallofrecord.blogspot.com/2006/12/dirty-little-war.html

The economics of the two wars are quite different. One might ask the veterans of each what they think about the cost of being wounded versus the cost of being killed.

And one might question the cost of treatment versus the cost of turning damaged troops out on the streets to be vilified as our fine citizens did in the 70s.

Yes, Iraq is a dirty little war and Vietnam was a dirty big war and WWII was a dirty huge war. And thinking the way Ms. Bilmes now does, during WWII, could have had us all singing "Deutschland uber alles". There are costs... and there are costs.

I remember ... as a former USAF officer 1968-72... people like Ms. Bilmes, thank you very much.

[maria]

Costs? But why? The whole thing was a disaster from the get go and stupid and unnecessary. So I find it outrageous to try to justify the misery it has caused with the bromide that "there are costs." Or are you being ironic (I hope)? Or are you one of those who is still trying to justify the Vietnamese stupidity? Geez.

[anne]

There is absolutely no honest question about the honesty of the American costs of war and occupation in Iraq found by Linda Bilmes and Joseph Stigltz; none, none at all, absolutely none. Similarly there is no honest question about the honesty of the costs of the war and occupation for Iraqis. The questions raised have repeatedly been shown to be raised for deception, shameful deception.

Even the American Enterprise Institute has come to use a variation of the estimates by Bilmes and Stiglitz. Shame, shame, shame.

[Bernard Yomtov]

Over 18,000 diseases serious enough to require medical air transport? That sounds suspiciously high. These are people in their 20's and 30's for the most part, and presumably in good physical condition. Is it really possible that, over a 3.5 year period a group of, say, 130,000 such people would experience that rate of serious disease? No. It's not.

Surely most of those 18,000 cases are somehow related to the war.

[maria]

The "size" of the wars can be calculated on other grounds than the number of casualties. Such as the financial cost. And the stupidity involved in going to war. Iraq may be larger than either of the others as far as long term costs go. And it is surely the most stupid of all.

[anne]

The lunatics simply cannot help being lunatics, vicious as vicious can be.

[howard]

Peter, the total number of non-mortal casualties reported at your very link is...46,880, which is close enough to 50,000 for purposes of discussion.

the two groups you seem to think can be ignored are "non-hostile injuries" (whose definition would be interesting to know) and "diseases - medical air transport required," which bernard yomtov has already addressed to some extent.

a couple of years ago, when i looked at this in some further detail, most of the people in that latter category, btw, were people having stress reactions to the war, which fits with the shortage of mental health professionals the article discusses.

meanwhile, yes, it's possible that the non-hostile injuries are the kinds of things that could happen in an army base in peacetime, but that's at best a speculative conceptualizion.

seriously, though, i have to question why it is that you want to write off 25,000 people and claim that it's dishonest to include them. your reasoning is...what, exactly?

[callahan]

More proof that it is past time to get the hell out of that tribal part of the world.

says...

Bruce Hall

"Whatever you think about the politics of the war, the execution of the war is a magnitude better."

What does the above mean? Better than what? Better for whom? Your blog post does not make sense.

Comparing Vietnam to Iraq is like comparing apples to books. The combatants are different, the geography is different, the terms of battles are different.

[Peter Schaeffer]

Maria,
As best I can tell, the ICCC web site uses the same military data sources as Blimes/Stiglitz.
Treating diseases incurred in the war zone as equivalent to combat wounds is misleading at best. The same holds for non-combat injuries (car crashes, etc.). However, the most serious deception is falling to distinguish between grave wounds and those that allow a soldier to return to service quickly.
Of course, some portion of the disease victims will suffer lasting harm. My guess is that the number will be quite small. A higher fraction of the non-combat injuries will prove to be serious and lasting. However, it is also true that a number of the seriously wounded will make full recoveries. Overall, the number of soldiers who didn’t return to duty looks like the best estimate of the seriously maimed. That’s 10,000 not 50,000.
Bernard Yomtov,
The correct denominator is the number of tours of duty served in the war zone. I have found estimates from 1 million to 1.4 million. Of course, this is a gross number. Some soldiers have served several tours in Iraq. The net number may be as low as 550,000.
Still 18,000 medical air evacuations from disease sounds very high given the age and physical condition of the troops. That having been said, I doubt that the number of permanently harmed (from disease) will be high.

Bruce Hall,
Do you have any idea of why the disease count is so high?
Anne,
A quick check of the Blimes/Stiglitz data appears to show that they include future interest payments as part of the cost of the war. This is rather dubious. Imagine the outcry if someone tried to include interest payments as part of the cost of Social Security, Medicare, or Head Start. See The Economics of the Iraq War--BECKER for a somewhat detailed critique of the Blimes/Stiglitz theories.
Howard,
I am not trying to write off anyone. However, an honest discussion has to distinguish between those seriously maimed in war and those who aren’t. I am also trying to separate the impact of Iraq from the normal peacetime operations of the military (which are very dangerous).
Let me put this in perspective. 7,514 active duty military personnel died while Clinton was in office (1993 – 2000). See American War and Military Operations Casualties: Lists and Statistics for some data.

[anne]

The lunatics are about, hide the children. Yuch.

[anne]

Remember, there was no war in Iraq, there is no occupation. I am so pleased.

[Bruce Hall]

Peter,

This may offer some explanation:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_casualties_notes.htm

By the end of July 2004 the Army had evacuated over 800 "Psychiatric" casualties from Iraq. Of these, Depression accounted for 385 [47.0% of psychiatric Disease occurrences]; Adjustment disorder for 34 [4.1% of psychiatric]; and Suicidal ideation 32 [3.9% of psychiatric]. The source of the other 45% of psychiatric evacuations was not specified.

US Army FM 6-22.5 "COMBAT STRESS" notes "Rates of combat stress casualties vary greatly, with higher ratios during lengthy periods of intense combat. In Okinawa 1945, during a peak month of battle, the combat stress casualties among Marine Forces were reported as high as one for every two wounded in action (WIA). Under less lengthy periods, as suggested by data acquired from the Israeli Defense Forces fighting in Lebanon 1982, the ratio of combat stress casualties to WIA in small units can be as high as one to one. In the past, we have generally suffered as many as one battle stress casualty for every three to five WIA in heavy fighting. ... During the 1942-45 period in the European Theater, there was a ratio of one combat stress casualty for every three WIA."

I'd also like to commend you on your civility. Although I don't agree with James Killus in other posts about CO2 and global warming, he also comments in a civil and reasoned manner... unlike certain individuals who believe a personal attack is sufficient in lieu of a reasoned statement.

[howard]

Peter, let's be quite precise, shall we?

Of the 7514 active military who died while clinton was in office, precisely 1 died from hostile action. another 65 died from what were categorized as terrorist actions. The other 7500 died from: accident, homicide, illness, self-inflicted, and unknown causes.

I'm not sure what it is that you find so dangerous about that.

in fact, as a quick eyeball, the numbers are relatively similar during bush's years in office for non-hostile causes of death.

your response to bernard yomtov suggests, in fact, that you are discounting half of those who have been classified as injured because you, personally, doubt that their injuries are severe. somehow, i don't find that very comforting.

as for the issue of future interest costs: every penny of this war has been funded by emergency appropriation, which is to say that all of it is borrowed money since by definition, these emergency appropriations are marginal costs and, therefore, fall into the deficit.

so yes, we are borrowing the money to pay for the war and the total costs of the war must, perforce, include the interest. do you think that it's wrong to count the costs of interest when you assess the total costs of buying a home with a mortgage?

[evagrius]

Perhaps the situation could be seen from the perspective of WWII. If the ratio of wounded to killed is now 1/16 and was 1/2 in WWII, then one could assume that the casualty rate would have been around 15,000.

To me, it's sounding more and more Pyrrhic.

As for the "legend" concerning returning Vietnam vets and their supposed mistreatment,it's exactly that, a legend. I think it was in the minds of the vets more than anything else. Being ignored is not the same as being verbally abused etc;. That there was no adulation of the vets is not an indication of mistreatment.
There's been enough written on this that shows it to be a legend or urban myth.

[James Killus]

I'll add a little point of clarification to what evagrius writes. I have witnessed some of what I would call at least minor abuse of Vietnam Veterans, but it did not come from any particular place in the political spectrum, and had more to do with what came to be a general belief that VVs were somehow more "damaged" than other veterans of other wars. Some fraction of people in the country thought of them as "losers," and this wasn't a particularly leftist sentiment. This was amplified by the preponderance of guys by the roadway with cardboard signs saying "Vietnam Veteran, Please Help." While some of them may have been veterans, I know for a fact that most were not.

I will say that during my college years, the Vietnam Veterans who were around sometimes played on their "toughness" reps, one way or another, and if it helped any of them get laid, I was entirely sympathetic to their program.

I'll also note that I've only met a couple of veterans of the current Iraq War, and if they are any indication, Iraq is seriously worse than Vietnam ever was. There were real safe areas in Vietnam; Iraq sounds like it rapidly becoming wall-to-wall hell.

[Bernard Yomtov]

Peter,

No. I don't think that is the correct denominator.

What we want is to measure annual rates of disease serious enough to require medical air transport. Now we have averaged, I think, around 130,000 troops in Iraq for 46 months. Eighteen thousand with disease that serious is about 391 a month, or just under 4700 a year. Dividing by 130,000 gives an annual rate of 3.6%.

As we agree, this seems extremely high for a youthful physically fit population. (In thinking about all the people I know, whose average age is probably around double that of the troops, and none of whom are former Olympians, I doubt their rate is that high). Regardless of your opinion as to how many will recover, you must admit that the vast majority of these 18,000 are in fact war casualties.

[Bruce Hall]

Evagrius,

For many soldiers returning from Vietnam, indifference to their experience was probably an accurate way to describe public reaction. However, there were some fringe protesters who delighted in calling anyone who went there a "baby killer."

I can't say no soldier wants to go to war; some clearly do. But most do not.

I don't know what to make of your calculation of 15,000 and what in particular is "Pyrrhic". The point I was making is that the cost of the war is, to a large degree, associated with the level of sophistication of weapons and support systems that have reduced the number of soldiers killed relative to wounded. Soldiers who might have died in previous wars are being saved. Soldiers who might have required evacuation are being treated locally. Soldiers with minor wounds are often able to function normally without returning to base.

Obviously, this costs money; the alternative is greater number of deaths. Therefore, the war is being waged more effectively than past wars with regard to soldier casualties.

Beyond that, the political decision to stay or leave is outside the realm of economics... every war has been "uneconomical." For those who are philosophically opposed to any war, the use of economic arguments is just a convenient smokescreen.

The most economical way to have fought the war in Iraq would have been not only to dismantle Saddam's armies, but to then use saturation bombing in any area where large numbers of "insurgents" were active. This tactic was effective in Germany... dropping white phosphorus bombs... in demoralizing both the opposing forces and the civilian population to the extent that there was little effort to resist after the armed forces were overcome. Of course, a lot of Germans were killed, but a lot of U.S. soldiers were not. Same thing in Japan... just a differ set of bombs. But a lot of U.S. soldiers saved... much more economical.

That approach, however, would be seen as inhuman and barbaric by those anti-war individuals who now argue that the precision warfare and policing efforts are too costly. Get it? Cheap and devastating is inhuman; precise and restrained is too expensive. Economics justifies political persuasion it appears... not!

[evagrius]

Bruce Hall;

Peculiar reasoning on your part. Making comparisons to Germany and Japan are a bit ludicrous. Those countries had declared war or at least attacked the U.S. in a direct way. That was understood by the populations of those countries. They had invaded other countries and expected consequences.
Iraq never threatened the U.S.
Are you advocating that the U.s. now becomes an effective warring empire, invading whenever it feels the need, brutally massacring people for some grand glorious scheme?

Please clarify your point.

[Bruce Hall]

Evagrius,

Of course I am not advocating saturation bombing. What I am saying is that what is "economical"... cheap and effective in overcoming an opposition force... could never be a rationale for someone trying to argue that the war is too expensive... what this whole discussion has been about.

All of the "economic" arguments are red herrings to mask the real point of those making them: they are opposed to the war on political or moral grounds. Trying to use economic arguments about war is ludicrous.

The high costs of this war are directly a result of:
1) maximizing soldiers' survival rates through expensive technology and support systems, and
2) minimizing civilian casualties.
If the argument is that this has caused the war to be uneconomical... okay. The alternative for those who want to argue that a war should not be fought in an "uneconomical" way is... destruction of everything that opposes you or happens to be in your way and get it over fast. The military certainly has that capability.

Beyond that, to be in Iraq or not is purely a political issue, not an economic one. Likewise, the manner in which the war is conducted is purely a political, not economic, decision. One can argue the political merits or lack thereof, but saying the war is uneconomical is just babble... since all wars are uneconomical.

[donna]

The VA experience definitely depends on where you live. The San Diego VA had basically written off my brother-in-law to leukemia. He is a Vietnam-era vet who cannot get full disability since he was exposed to agent orange in the Philippines and not 'Nam. They also refused to treat his PTSD until two years ago. They moved to Tucson and now he is getting excellent care at the VA there, as well as PTSD treatment. My father-in-law is in Tucson for the winter, suffered an arterial blockage in his leg this week and underwent surgery today. In West Virginia where he lives most of the year, the six hour drive it takes to get to the VA probably would have killed him.

The impact of all these additional wounded and PTSD patients is going to be tremendous.

[billy]

All of the "economic" arguments are red herrings to mask the real point of those making them: they are opposed to the war on political or moral grounds. Trying to use economic arguments about war is ludicrous.

It is not ludicrous, if one of the arguments made by the supporters of the war was that it could be conducted on the cheap. Convenient to forget Lawrence Lindsey, eh?

Maybe only after invading Iraq did we realize that Iraq had not attacked us? So we could not carpet bomb them and do it on the cheap?

[howard]

bruce, let's go a step further: i was opposed to the war because it failed the test of cost-benefit analysis, which is also why the broader public has turned against the war.

not that it's clear what the purpose/mission of this war was/is, but on the assumption that it more or less was intended to create an american-friendly iraq, saturation bombing would not have passed the cost-benefit test, either (putting aside any moral test).

[anne]

Here is what we are facing:

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-bilmes5jan05,0,3457599,print.story?coll=la-opinion-rightrail

January 5, 2007

The Battle of Iraq's Wounded: The U.S. is poorly equipped to care for the tens of thousands of soldiers injured in Iraq.
By Linda Bilmes - Los Angeles Times

THE NEW YEAR brought with it the 3,000th American death in Iraq. But what's equally alarming — and far less well known — is that for every fatality in Iraq, there are 16 injuries. That's an unprecedented casualty level. In the Vietnam and Korean wars, by contrast, there were fewer than three people wounded for each fatality. In World Wars I and II, there were less than two.

That means we now have more than 50,000 wounded Iraq war soldiers. In one sense, this reflects positive change: Better medical care and stronger body armor are enabling many more soldiers to survive injuries that might have led, in earlier generations, to death. But like so much else about this war, the Bush administration failed to foresee what it would mean, failed to plan for the growing tide of veterans who would be in urgent need of medical and disability care. The result is that as the Iraq war approaches its fourth anniversary, the Department of Veterans Affairs is buckling under a growing volume of disability claims and rising demand for medical attention.

So far, more than 200,000 veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan have been treated at VA medical facilities — three times what the VA projected, according to a Government Accountability Office analysis. More than one-third of them have been diagnosed with mental health conditions, including post-traumatic stress disorder, acute depression and substance abuse. Thousands more have crippling disabilities such as brain or spinal injuries. In each of the last two years, the VA has underestimated the number of veterans who would seek help and the cost of treating them — forcing it to go cap in hand to Congress for billions of dollars in emergency funding....

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/11/washington/11veterans.html?ex=1318219200&en=57988c04bbbbd7d4&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

October 11, 2006

Data Suggests Vast Costs Loom in Disability Claims
By SCOTT SHANE

Nearly one in five soldiers leaving the military after serving in Iraq and Afghanistan has been at least partly disabled as a result of service, according to documents of the Department of Veterans Affairs obtained by a Washington research group.

The number of veterans granted disability compensation, more than 100,000 to date, suggests that taxpayers have only begun to pay the long-term financial cost of the two conflicts. About 567,000 of the 1.5 million American troops who have served so far have been discharged.

"The trend is ominous," said Paul Sullivan, director of programs for Veterans for America, an advocacy group, and a former V.A. analyst.

Mr. Sullivan said that if the current proportions held up over time, 400,000 returning service members could eventually apply for disability benefits when they retired....

[anne]

We will have hundreds of thousands of variously disabled soldiers as a result of the tragic insanity of going to war with a country that was no possible threat to us and occupying the country as though we were to become the colonialists of this century. If we are experiencing hundreds of thousands of disabled soldiers, the Iraqis are experiencing hundreds of thousands of excess deaths and who can possibly ever know how many disabled.

Somehow though even while the Veterans Administration has supported the casualty-disability counts, we immediately find the honesty and patriotism of a researcher questioned for daring to point to the terrible count. We are referred to a real patriots who will tell us not to fret because we must remember how many Americans are killed in traffic accidents yearly.

No matter though, we must all be polite and merry.

[anne]

The merry living room warriors know there are no Americans killed, none wounded physically or mentally or spiritually. Iraqis evidently do not count or at any rate we have not been sufficiently destructive. The war is less costly than Starbuck's morning coffee. All is well. I am pleased.

[anne]

Am I being nice enough?

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/18/opinion/l18iraq.html

The Relentless Tragedy Called Iraq

To the Editor:

"Insurgent Bombs Directed at G.I.'s Increase in Iraq":

I can't help but compare your headline with President Bush's bizarre remarks on Wednesday: "There's some good people in our country who believe we should cut and run. They're not bad people when they say that, they're decent people":

"President Joins in G.O.P. Attacks on Democrats About Terrorism".

You better believe I'm a decent person — and a decent mother whose 19-year-old United States Marine son is being deployed to Iraq next month to face a deadly, targeted anti-American insurgency that has nothing to do with the "war on terror."

Why should my son, or any other mother's son, be sacrificed in a mounting civil war because it's not politically advantageous for the Bush administration to admit that its Iraq policy has failed?

My decency is suffused with bitterness.

Donna J. Anton
Hayle, England, Aug. 17, 2006

[anne]

http://select.nytimes.com/2007/01/04/opinion/04herbert.html

January 4, 2007

Another Thousand Lives
By BOB HERBERT

How long can this go on?

Saddam is dead. The weapons of mass destruction were a mirage. More than 3,000 American G.I.s and scores of thousands of Iraqis have been killed. Voters in the United States have made it clear that they no longer support American involvement in this exercise in sustained barbarism. Incredibly, the U.S. military itself is turning against the war.

And yet the president, against the counsel of his commanders on the ground, apparently is ready to escalate — to send more American lives into the fire he set in Iraq.

In a devastating critique of the war, the newsweekly Army Times led its current edition with the headline: "About-Face on the War — After 3 years of support, troops sour on Iraq." The article detailed a Military Times Poll that found, for the first time, that "more troops disapprove of the president's handling of the war than approve of it." ...

And who is paying the price for this insanity — apart from ordinary Iraqis, who are paying the most grievous price of all? The burden of the war in the U.S. is being shouldered overwhelmingly by a contingent of Americans whom no one would categorize as economically privileged.

As Lizette Alvarez and Andrew Lehren wrote in Monday's Times:

"The service members who died during this latest period fit an unchanging profile. They were mostly white men from rural areas, soldiers so young they still held fresh memories of high school football heroics and teenage escapades. Many men and women were in Iraq for the second or third time. Some were going on their fourth, fifth or sixth deployment."

There is no way that this can be justified. It is just wrong....

All of the tortured, twisted rationales for this war — all of the fatuous intellectual pyrotechnics dreamed up to justify it — have vaporized, and we're left with just the mad, mindless, meaningless and apparently endless slaughter.

Shakespeare, in "Henry VI," said: "Now thou art come unto a feast of death." ...

[Bruce Hall]

The bulk of those collect disability are from pre-2003 engagements.

War is not a matter of economics. Never has been, never will be.

[anne]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/11/washington/11veterans.html?ex=1318219200&en=57988c04bbbbd7d4&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

Nearly one in five soldiers leaving the military after serving in Iraq and Afghanistan has been at least partly disabled as a result of service, according to documents of the Department of Veterans Affairs obtained by a Washington research group.

The number of veterans granted disability compensation, more than 100,000 to date, suggests that taxpayers have only begun to pay the long-term financial cost of the two conflicts....

[anne]

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-bilmes5jan05,0,3457599,print.story?coll=la-opinion-rightrail

THE NEW YEAR brought with it the 3,000th American death in Iraq. But what's equally alarming — and far less well known — is that for every fatality in Iraq, there are 16 injuries....

[anne]

Lying and deception are lying and deception, so go on along lying and deceiving, but the dead are dead and the wounded are wounded and the costs beyond real understanding.

We need to leave Iraq immediately, as we have needed to leave every day for what will soon be 4 insanely tragic years.

[billy]

War is not a matter of economics. Never has been, never will be.

And thus are those who pushed for this war, absolved of the lies and perfidy employed in its pursuit?

Let me see..
Bush, Republicans and conservatives pushed for war on political and moral grounds. The country supported that political/moral war.

The war was not sold on scare-mongering. The war was not sold as a quickly fought and done. The war was not sold as a cheap war. The war was not sold on lies. No. No. No.

The war was a great moral and political necessity of the times. And it demanded leaders and people of great moral and political courage to do so. The great G. W. Bush supported by the patriotic Republicans and conservatives was the one who rose to it - the glory of those days - one day I'll narrate it to my grandchildren.

[secure border]

4,000+ Americans are killed by illegal aliens each year in the United States

(recently including NY actress Adrienne Shelly, who was hanged)

So, if we do bring the troops home, let's put them to work on our southern border

let them shoot at the people who cross the border, like those in today's armed excursion where our National Guard RETREATED!

oh, this post is just to put the numbers in context

[Peter Schaeffer]

Howard,

I agree that almost none of the Clinton era fatalities were war related. Note that I earlier mentioned the need for peacetime death/injury/disease statistics to determine the incremental impact of Iraq. As you point out the peacetime (non-war related) fatality totals are high. It is reasonable to assume that the peacetime injury (and perhaps disease) statistics are high as well.

I am trying to make several points. The first (and less important) point is about language. Listing non-combat injuries and disease victims as wounded is misleading at best. The ICCP web site doesn’t do it. Blimes/Stiglitz do. As a consequence, Blimes/Stiglitz come up with an erroneous 16:1 “wounded”/death ratio and compare it to other wars. Using a more accurate measure (NRTD), the ratio for Iraq is only modestly higher than other wars.

The second (and more important) point is to distinguish between serious war wounds and minor ones that allow a quick return to service. The ICCP web site gives a total of 22,057 wounded and 10,142 who were not able to return do duty. Neither number is 50,000.

Including presumed interest payments as part of the cost of the war strikes me as incorrect. It is by no means clear that Iraq spending is incremental, at least with respect to the budget deficit. Are you sure that the same dollars wouldn’t be spent on the military somewhere else, in the absence of Iraq? For example, on the SDI? How about “privatizing” Social Security? Perhaps more tax cuts? Can any or all of these possibilities be ruled out?

Beyond that, I don’t see the distinction between “emergency” appropriations and regular ones, at least with respect to the deficit and future interest payments. As you probably know, the PAYGO rules lapsed several years ago. Let’s use a specific example. Say Congress decided to either zero or double Head Start spending based on a flip of a coin. Head Start is not funded via emergency appropriations, at least so far. Would it then be reasonable to include in the future savings/costs the interest payments avoided or incurred? If not, why not? After all eliminating/doubling Head Start would clearly impact the budget deficit.

Bernard Yomtov,

I think the number of soldiers in the Iraq theatre of operations is considerably greater than 130,000. The CBO uses a number of 160,000. However, the difference isn’t that great and we can agree that the disease air evacuation rate is very high for an otherwise healthy military population.

To check on this, I surveyed all American fatalities that have occurred so far. Only 52 are attributed to disease and/or illness. This fits with the known demographics of the population in question. However, it also tends to indicate that only a small portion of the disease air evacuations were for grave illnesses.

Overall, there have been 2428 hostile fatalities and 578 non-hostile fatalities so far including 222 from vehicle accidents. These ratios tend to show that the NRTD population accounts for the preponderance of those maimed by the war.

[Bruce Hall]

I'm glad that the real reasons are on the table: you don't believe the reasons for the war and you don't believe those who told the nation those reasons.

That's reasonable. It is a political argument, not an economic one and should be addressed as a political issue, not couched in economic terms.

If the intelligence reports from the late 1990s were wrong before GWB became president, then they were wrong after he became president and the premise of the war was wrong. And the members of Congress who saw the same reports as the president chose to ignore the fact that the reports were obviously wrong. And the military leaders who saw the same reports as the president chose to ignore the fact that the reports were obviously wrong. Everyone simply ignored the obvious lies and chose to spend money and lives recklessly, to show how patriotic they were.

The fact that there is continued fighting supported by Iran is a good reason for us to leave Iraq immediately and tell the citizens, "Too bad, we made a mistake" whether or not that is true. I guess if enough people believe it was all a right-wing conspiracy, then it would be politically expedient to leave Iraq immediately... and we will be morally vindicated regardless what happens to the people of that country.

And we could also explain that it is economically too burdensome for us to stay there. That will save face ... even if it is just one more lie.

[howard]

peter, let's start with the issue of interest, which, while minor, is actually an economics issue!

the answer to your thought experiment is this: it is, in fact, impossible to determine which particular piece of spending approved through the normal appropriation process in a budget-deficit year is the marginal piece of spending that "breaks" the budget. if bush were seeking budget appropriations through a normal budget process, i would agree that it would be intellectually unsound to ascribe interest costs as part of the cost of the war.

but bush, by seeking out "emergency" appropriations to pay for iraq outside of the normal budgetary process makes it easy for us: it's all budget busting, since the budget is already busted without the emergency appropriation.

so your analogy to Head Start isn't valid. while admittedly dollars are fungible, when the chief executive treats iraq costs as outside of the normal budget process, he is by definition treating it as deficit spending.

now, if the dems are serious about applying PAYGO to Iraq and we see an end to iraq being funded by emergency appropriation, from that moment on, i'd be happy to agree that it's not correct to ascribe the interest costs to the war, so we shall see. (btw, as a side note, it was posner who wrote the somewhat tendentious piece you linked to, not becker.)

now, as far as the issue of injuries goes, that someone is patched up and can go back into combat is irrelevant to future demands on the VA system. look at all the former nfl players who were patched up and sent back onto the playing field who have trouble walking at the age of 50.

this is not a discussion of how dangerous is the war in iraq to the troops stationed there, although the level of stress-related cases is highly suggestive. this is a discussion of what the future costs to the VA system are, which your discussion doesn't address.

finally: the numbers you cited from the clinton years are pretty comparable to the numbers cited in the bush years...sans iraq. of course, those are only numbers for deaths, not injuries, so they don't give us that much insight into the patterns of injuries, but fine, let's accept, for the sake of discussion, that none of the non-hostile injuries should be counted, on the assumption that the same number of people would get hurt in accidents hanging around military bases (i don't believe it, mind you, but i'm prepared to assume).

let's even go further: let's assume that 1/2 of those with non-injury medical problems would have had them hanging around military bases as well.

that still leaves us with a ratio of roughly 10-1, which will still swamp the VA system....

[howard]

Bruce, what in the world are you talking about? this is a discussion about an aspect of the costs of the iraq war: future claims on the VA system. how does your little rant address that?

and please, if you want to be taken seriously: do not claim that everyone saw the same intel reports. they didn't.

and don't tell us about "wrong" reports from the 1990s: as we learned from the Duelfer report, it was the Clinton bombings in '98 that finished off the last remnants of saddam's wmd system, so the reports that saddam had wmds in the late '90s were, at the time, accurate.

[yan]

I find it odd that a comparison is being made between the casualty rates in Iraq with the high intensity campaigns in Veitnam, Korea or the World Wars. According to the administration "major combat" operations were over by May of 2003. Shouldn't we be comparing casualties in Iraq since that date with the occupations of Japan and Germany in the aftermath of World War II? The fact that casualties continued at such a rate after combat operations had officially ended was the clearest signal that the expectations the administration had when entering the war were misguided. The disparity between the official pronouncement of victory and the actual instability of the occupation is far more reminescent of the Soviet Union's adventure in Afghanistan during the 1980s.

[maria]

"War is not a matter of economics. Never has been, never will be."

I nominate this for the silly statement of the decade.

[Cyrille]

Iraq expensive because it minimises civilian casualties? Never before has there been a war fought by a western power where the ration of civilians to soldiers killed has been so high!
Of course, few people bother noticing them anymore...

[Ninjaplease]

I think we're all ignoring the Market Solution: a low-cost privatized army!!! Think of the Hessians or Genoese Bowmen, the US already has several fairly expensive private armies for the security of the rich--see Hurricane Katrina.

http://www.amc.army.mil/lean/index.aspx

The Army is trying to implement Lean Six Sigma--so clearly they could be as efficient as Home Depot is today!

With a private army, the costs are upfront and defined and you don't have to care for the wounded!---I see plusses all around.

[Suvi]

"Surely most of those 18,000 cases are somehow related to the war

Almost certainly, Bernard. I tip accidents as a major contributor to that number.

Anyone who doubts this is possible should recall that roughly half the 5,000 US helicopter losses in Vietnam were.... due to accidents

[James Kroeger]

Anne:The lunatics simply cannot help being lunatics, vicious as vicious can be.
Hi Anne. Just dropped by for a visit. Thanks for continuing to challenge the war enthusiasts.

Did you ever read this little thing I wrote on human nature?

Why Are People So Cruel?

I think you may find it interesting.

All best...

James

[elvis]

War is not a matter of economics. Never has been, never will be.
That's why we have a volunteer army.

[elvis]

War is not a matter of economics. Never has been, never will be.

What is it a matter of, then?
--Survival? (Iraq was a threat? Puhleeease!)
--Honor? (I submit for your inspection Abu Grahib)
--Deposing Despicable Dictators? (who put him there?)
--Oil had nothing to do with it (Puhleeese!)

I'm sorry if this offends you, but anyone, Democrat, Republican, Soccer mom or Vietnam vet who supported invading Iraq needs to be confronted on their patriotism. Worse than flag burners. Clearly worse.

My motto is "America, right or wrong!" But I draw the line at stupid.

[Bruce Hall]

All,

The VA funding issue, which was the central issue of the post, devolved into a diatribe against the Iraq war.

The VA has a $70 billion annual budget (as of 2005). According the its budget summary, there are about 24 million veterans from all wars who are still living.

Rather than questioning the political decisions about the war in Iraq, perhaps the focus should be on whether the VA actually provides the level of service for the cost of the service.

Having had first hand experience with taking my father, a WWII veteran, to VA hospitals for 3 years for treatment of cancer, I can attest to the cattle car treatment and cursory efforts given by some of the centers. That is not to say that some don't try, but in his case his treatment failed because he never received the required chemotherapy after his surgery... apparently the different departments never got together and we were never told it was needed until it was too late.

Perhaps that $70 billion could be used to fund treatments at private-sector hospitals... where you and I go... and have it done more effectively and efficiently. Isn't that the issue here? Not the politics of the war.

Budgets and the level of treatment per dollar are what the issue is about.

[howard]

Bruce, every discussion of the matter i've ever seen finds the VA system to be the most effective, efficient health-care provider in the country. If you have evidence and not anecdote, we'd be happy to hear same, but if you think that there are no "cursory efforts" at private-sector hospitals, you are deranged.

[maria]

Of course the reason we are having this discussion is due to the stupidity of the war. Every comment on the war should be a diatribe against it. There is not a single good reason for the war. If there is, please tell me what it is. For example: what benefit has the US gotten from the war. Or what has the war done for Iraq? Perhaps Israel is happy about it since it has destroyed Iraq. But are we supposed to be doing favors for Israel at immense cost to ourselves? If so, why?

[Bruce Hall]

Howard,

One can only demonstrate the differences in private sector versus VA processes. The processes in the VA are set up to process large numbers of veterans with relatively small staffs, so it is efficient from the VA's operating perspective.

But you have to understand that it is not uncommon for a VA facility to be located within a mile or two of other hospitals that could provide treatment for other than rehabilitation. This could be done with a VA card that could act as a Medicare card and be honored at any hospital.

As far as focus, the VA could then focus on the most difficult rehabilitation cases.

The way it operates now for outpatient/routine visits is that you get an "appointment" to come in for a particular day. You go in and get a number for signing in. After you sign in, you get a number for your initial review with a nurse. After the review, you get a number to see a doctor. After the doctor, you may be directed to a treatment area or you may be directed to the pharmacy. When you go to the pharmacy, you hand it the script and wait usually 1-2 hours. The process efficient for the VA, but extremely time-consuming and difficult for those who are ill. This is how a large percentage of the veterans receive their care. This is the portion of the VA care that could easily be moved to the private sector, reducing the load on facility and staffs to allow increases in rehabilitation and intensive care service without increasing facilities and staffing.

..

[maria]

Bush getting desperate, asking the dead to volunteer again. LOL.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6237607.stm

[Arne (not anne)]

"Of course the reason we are having this discussion is due to the stupidity of the war. Every comment on the war should be a diatribe against it."
Some of the heat in this thread comes from Peter Schaeffer's attempt to treat the subject LA Times commentary as more than a diatribe. I think he is correct that comparing the calculated 16 to 1 ratio for Iraq to 3 to 1 and 2 to 1 for Vietman and WW2 is flawed. However, rather than trying to correct the ratio, I would question whether comparing current data to 60 year old data is meaningful.

"The Iraq war is bad enough without playing games to make it seem worse than it is. Honesty, accuracy, and full disclosure should be the rule."
I do not think Bilmes is going to make any converts with flawed analysis. If honesty were the rule, sorting out the political garbage would be much easier. And then we would not have gone to Iraq in the first place.

[bullbust]

The way it operates now for outpatient/routine visits is that you get an "appointment" to come in for a particular day. You go in and get a number for signing in. After you sign in, you get a number for your initial review with a nurse. After the review, you get a number to see a doctor. After the doctor, you may be directed to a treatment area or you may be directed to the pharmacy. When you go to the pharmacy, you hand it the script and wait usually 1-2 hours. The process efficient for the VA, but extremely time-consuming and difficult for those who are ill.

Describes exactly what I experience every time I go for treatment, private hospital, private insurance, all paid privately. No subsidy, govt, etc anywhere near all of this. So what's your point?

War is not about economics.
Bruce is a engaging in a metaphysical debate, where none is in progress.Why? For what reason is an abstract argument being pushed? The very concrete issue of VA costs being driven higher as a result of this war is under discussion.

There are posters here who say that this was war was sold by its supporters to the public as cheap, fast, easy postwar cleanup and necessary for survival against mass annihilation. The respective terms were "few days", "cakewalk", "greeted as liberators", "WMD"

These posters claim that the supporters of the war were liars. So it is apt for them to prove that one of the reasons that went into selling this war to the public, that it would be cheap, was a lie.

For Bruce, this doesn't matter. For Bruce its all about the abstract things "war was always about moral and political issues". Notice that Bruce never talks about this war. It's about war in general.

The time and place to make that moral and political argument was long ago - instead of selling this war as a cakewalk, war supporters should have solicited public support for a moral and political war. They should have asked for blood sweat and tears from the public at large. Did they?
[No - to do that would have meant the public would not support it]

After finding the war a mess, they should have stood up and said: this is not a cakewalk, it would need sacrifices, and tears. There were opportunities. 2004 elections was one. Did they?
[No - to do that they would have to admit they were liars and incompetent to boot, and the opponents could win the elections]

In the last elections, the public recognized the lies, and gave the supporters of the war the boot. They saw through the lies. The public could care two hoots about the metaphysics of war - they saw right through the Bruce argument and realized it for what it was.

Bruce's abstract argument should be seen for what it is - a strawman tactic. It is used to avoid responsibility and accountability for those incompetents and liars who supported and prosecuted this war.

He can discuss VA efficiency, the metaphysics of war and possibly about Thucydides. What he cannot stand is any talk that shows up the lies and liars in this war. That could lead to accountability, scorn and discredit for the causes and people he holds in esteem.

Actually all this long winded mollycoddling of Bruce is not required - his site portrays him for who he is. He is not here for debate. One should just ask Bruce bluntly - when are the juniors going to enter public service ? Isn't it time you had a talk with them? About dulce, decorum & mori?

[yan]

--Survival?
--Honor?
--Deposing Despicable Dictators?
--Oil had nothing to do with it

Survival: The war was sold on the premise that Saddam had WMD and was thus a threat to the US. Not to debate the validity of those claims or the quality of the intelligence used that was one of the initial things the war was about.

Honor: I don't think this was ever a major selling point of the war. While it may be honorable to seek revenge (at least in some cultures and I would argue that the idea has sufficient appeal in the US) the war in Afghanistan was far more about Al-Qaeda and the links between them and Iraq were largely dismissed despite being occassionally worked into speeches by the administration.

Deposing of Despicable Dictators: Yes we helped place Saddam in power and supported him due to the Cold War and then in the war against Iran. The positive relationship obviously ended with the first Gulf War and a decade of sanctions. Although it may be hypocritical to claim the moral high ground, removing a dictator from power is not a bad [i]casus belli[/i].

Oil: An unofficial and unadmitted but often suspected reason. Iraq does have supposedly over 110 billion barrels of proven reserves. The sad thing is annual output was averaging 2.6 million barrels per day in 2000 under the oil for food program but has been below 2 million barrels per day since the invasion. And the political climate in Iraq, whether we stay or go, is not likely to encourage investment in oil producing infrastructure.

So if the war was about survival or deposing a dictator, it should have been over by the end of 2003 when it was clear no WMD were to be found and Saddam had been captured. If the war was about oil, then we've only shot ourselves in the foot and removed .5 million barrels per day from global production and set the stage for underinvestment in developing Iraqi reserves. This really begs the questions of what continued occupation is about and what are we still trying to accomplish?

[anne]

Yes; I suppose the problem is diatribe. But, of 567,000 soldiers who have been discharged from the military after serving in Iraq more than 100,000 have already been granted disability support according to the diatribing Department of Veterans Affairs. Nearly 1 in 5 soldiers leaving the military after serving in Iraq are variously disabled.

Now, there have been 3,000 American soldiers killed in Iraq and the diatribe is that there are about 16 injuries for each death. That comes to more than 50,000 direct casualties. Also, more than 100,000 soldiers have already been granted disability support which suggests that really we are not dealing with diatribe after all.

[anne]

Now, I am not a military historian but I would suggest that the figures Linda Bilmes uses, simply from looking to Veterans Administration treatment numbers are all too accurate and there is no diatribe other than the attempt above to wish away the physical and psychological costs of the war in and occupation of Iraq.

The cost of care of soldiers is of course less important than the suffering of soldiers, but the cost of care for the occupation of Iraq is and will be horrid. Simply attacking the honesty of a researcher who brings the cost of care of soldiers to mind is what deception or diatribe is about.

Now, for some, not for me but for some, the costs of Iraq may be justified, but at least acknowledge them.

[Bernard Yomtov]

Arne (not anne),

But Peter no longer objects quiet so vigorously to Bilmes' numbers. He wanted to exclude the 18,000 air evacuees from the casualty count, but now agrees, at a minimum that this is a very high number, though he doesn't quite take the next step.

[maria]

On war and the economy I liked this one:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/
story/0,,1983865,00.html

[howard]

bruce, bullbust largely handled this, but really: what in the world are you talking about? there is nothing about the system you describe that is in any way different than how what you call "private" hospitals work, up to and including that (gasp!) there are private hospitals within a mile or two of each other that offer the exact same services! ye gods! imagine that!

i happen to agree that setting up a parallel system for veteran's is, in the scheme of things, foolish, but that's because i favor a national health-care system. the idea, though, that the VA system is somehow flawed because of the procedures you defined: good grief, man, what is it that you think that private hospitals do? treat you the way the old family GP system did in the '50s, where they come to you, you get infinite time to sit around and chat, and then everything is done for you rapidly, including your prescriptions are then filled?

what you're doing is reciting rote ideological talking points with not actual supporting data to make your case. as long as we have our current system in place, i have no problem in saying to the veterans who have served our country yes, part of the way we reward you for being willing to put your life on the line is that we have a medical system just for you, where you can count on being treated.

[Arne (not anne)]

The original responses to Mr. Schaeffer's assertion that the data needed some corrections included "Geez" and "Shame, shame, shame." Subsequent postings suggest to me that if a consensus could be reached it would include some but not all of his corrections.

In my opinion neither the left nor the right is careful enough about using facts. Boths sides use whatever supports their view even when it is questionable. This leads to a populace that makes decisions based on gut feelings instead of facts because they have learned not to trust the facts fed to them.

If we had gotten out the facts in late 2002 we would not be having this particular conversation because there would not have been an Iraq war. It may be naive to think we can reach a point where people have sources thay can really trust, but the current path teaches people to trust no one.

[elvis]

"COMMON SENSE IS NOT SO COMMON" - VOLTAIRE
Former supporters of the war and current apologists are worse than flag-burners. This is not a diatribe. It is common sense.

Patriots work for the benefit of their country. Flag-hugging war apologists fail this acid test.

Apologists are unpatriotic and must be confronted as the flag-burners they are-- flag burning by proxy.

Our country is now being led by a very unpatriotic person.
Purge the Urge to Surge!

[elvis]

If the marvelous Democrats had any guts they'd stop this tragedy by stopping the war which they could do by cutting off funding.
Maria, I'm behind you 100% (because I'm a patriot!) However, cutting off funding which was done in Vietnam earned the Dems the image of being weak on defense (and hence somehow unpatriotic). Then the flag--our precious symbol-- was usurped by unpatriotic posers. The kind of person who would wrap themselves in "old glory" while trampling on the Constitution. They are imposters.

How, then, to accomplish the necessary (ending the war) without again appearing to be weak on defense?

A war tax. With each "supplemental" spending request, Congress should attach a method of paying for it. And these payment methods should target the super-rich and corporations. Then give the bill to Bush to sign and let the great "Decider" show us who he really wants to support; our troops or the rich.

After he signs the bill--oh yes, he'll sign it. He's painted himself into a corner. He'll start getting calls from people who put him in office and suddenly there will be a new direction in the war-- out!

[anne]

No; the initial complaint questioning the "honesty" of Linda Bilmes "and by inference Stiglitz" was thoroughly shameful, thoroughly shameful; the repeated questioning of the researcher's honesty was precisely diatribe and not an attempt to simply question the research.

[anne]

Linda Bilmes was at most making an indirect, very indirect, political statement in the column, for we have no idea what her stance is on the war in and occupation of Iraq. Possibly she is conservative, who can tell? What she is doing is studying costs of Iraq, and telling us the costs are higher than most of us understand. That seems rather a conservative thing to do, but possibly not.

Already more than 100,000 soldiers who have left the military have been granted various disability supports. I would suggest all too easily that half of these soldiers were variously wounded and there is the 16 to 1 ratio of wounded to killed. Simple math.

[evagrius]

"War is not a matter of economics. Never has been, never will be."

That's true for only some.

Terry Jones
Saturday January 6, 2007
The Guardian

Early this year the Bush administration is to ask Congress to approve an additional $100bn for the onerous task of making life intolerable for the Iraqis. This will bring the total spent on the White House's current obsession with war to almost $500bn - enough to have given every US citizen $1,600 each. I wonder which the voters would have gone for if given the choice: shall we (a) give every American $1,600 or (b) spend the money on bombing a country in the Middle East that doesn't use lavatory paper?

Of course, there's another thing that George Bush could have done with the money: he could have given every Iraqi $18,700. I imagine that would have reduced the threat of international terrorism somewhat. Call me old-fashioned, but I can't help thinking that giving someone $18,700 brings them round to your side more quickly than bombing the hell out of them. They could certainly buy a lot of lavatory paper with it.

In 2002 the house budget committee and the congressional budget office both guesstimated the cost of invading Iraq at approximately $50bn; $500bn seems a bit wide of the mark. What's more, with over half a million dead, it means that the world's greatest military superpower has spent a million dollars for every Iraqi killed. That can't be value for money!

So how on earth could such a vast overspend occur? After all, the US is the flagship of monetary common sense. Well, for starters, in 2003 the White House refused to allow competitive bidding for contracts in Iraq, which is odd for the champions of free enterprise. Then the White House ensured there would be no overseeing of what was spent. In the original Iraq spending bill, which earmarked the first $87bn to go down the drain, there was a provision for the general accounting office to keep a check on things, but that provision was stripped from the bill - even though the Senate had originally voted for it 97 to 0.

But what I want to know is: how do they actually spend all that money? Well the answer is: they don't. According to the website Halliburtonwatch, the Halliburton subsidiary KBR bills the US taxpayer for $50-$80 per day for labourers working for it in Iraq, but pays them only $5-$16 per day. It's the same with Halliburton. In December 2003 the US army discovered that the company had overcharged by $61m for fuel transportation and $67m for food services in Iraq.

Then there is good old-fashioned incompetence. Take the al-Fatah pipeline: KBR went through $75.7m of taxpayers' money, supposedly trying to replace a pipeline across the river Tigris that US forces had blown up. They never finished the job, but still got paid.

With all this double-dealing and incompetence, you'd expect that those responsible would have been penalised by now. But that's where the mystery deepens. Companies such as Halliburton and its subsidiaries have never had it so good. In January 2006 the Bush administration intervened in a dispute between the Pentagon and Halliburton, and agreed to pay the company $199m in disputed charges. On January 26 2006 Halliburton announced that its 2005 profits were the "best in our 86-year history". And to date KBR has received around $16bn from its contracts in Iraq.

Vice-President Dick Cheney, formerly CEO of Halliburton, has not had a bad war either. His tax returns for 2005 show that he earned $194,862 from his Halliburton stock options alone. Mind you, it's small change compared to his $36m payoff when he left the firm. Was that for his past role, or was Halliburton anticipating further services from the future vice-president of the US? Perhaps it's just as well that in 2003 the White House removed from the Iraq spending bill any provision to penalise war profiteers who defrauded US taxpayers.

· Terry Jones is a film director, actor and Python www.terry-jones.net

[maria]

A nice idea Elvis, but you need guts to do it and the Democrats don't have many guts. Some but not many.

BTW, Reese is good on Ritter who now thinks Israel is pushing us into another war. I would be surprised if they were not.

http://www.antiwar.com/reese/?articleid=10276

[anne]

Now, that there are more than 100,000 veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan who are now considered disabled is not a political comment but a figure given us by the Veterans Administration. I abhor the occupation and would leave Iraq immediately, but I am not being political to note the 100,000 disabled or explain further the 50,000 wounded.

Possibly the occupation has been necessary and continues to be so, but we can at least understand the cost in wounded. I only wish the costs of all in Iraq were vastly less, but we must know what the costs are.

[anne]

So, we are authoritatively told that more than 100,000 soldiers who served in Iraq and Afghanistan and have left the military are receiving disability support.

Then we are told only 10,142 soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan were wounded and unable to return to duty in 72 hours. Notice the vast difference, and Linda Bilmes research conclusion of 50,000 wounded becomes completely understandable.

[howard]

maria, hope springs eternal, but you do realize that a budget that has no funding for iraq can, in fact, be vetoed by bush?

and you do realize that there aren't sufficient votes at this point for an override?

[maria]

Now the dupes in the Senate claim they would not have voted for the war if they knew what they know now. How nice! They see shambles and it makes them think, for once. A bit. I remember when a Presidential candidate (Romney?) claimed he had been brainwashed in Vietnam and it cost him any chance at being elected. Now these senators say they were brainwashed and they continue in office. Being naive enought to be brainwashed used to be regarded as shameful and costly. Now it is regarded as normal.

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Politics/
story?id=2771519&page=1

[maria]

howard: you mean that a budget that Bush would not dare veto and that denied funding for Iraq could not be crafted ? I think it would create a crisis, but that is what we need. Do the Democrats have the guts for it? Probably not, since they are pretty gutless.

[maria]

You won't get disentangled from the Middle East mess as long as the Congress and both parties are scared to death of Israel and the Zionist Lobby. It has the USA by the balls.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1167467674368
&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

[howard]

maria, i'll continue to say hopes springs eternal, but i don't think there is such a thing as a budget bush would not dare veto that didn't include funding for iraq.

and threatening to shut down the government altogether didn't work so well for gingrich et al, did it? maybe this time it's different, but i doubt it....

barney frank, btw (and i don't have time to track the reference down right now) also doesn't think there is any immediate way to end the iraq war by cutting off funding, and barney is by no stretch of the imagination gutless....

[Arne (not anne)]

"So, we are authoritatively told that more than 100,000 soldiers who served in Iraq and Afghanistan and have left the military are receiving disability support."
I noticed the difference between 100,000 disabled and 22,000 or 50,000 wounded and wondered about that too. Here is the source. They have not necessarily left the service and they did not necessarily receive the disability in Iraq. It is NOT 100,000 veterans - it is 100,000 claims.

If agreeing on facts when we already agree on the conclusion is this difficult, I have a long way to go with those who support the war - but I still try.

[Arne (not anne)]

I would not have chosen to question the honesty, but I still question the accuracy. The 2005 report by Bilmes and Stiglitz used a number for wounded that gives a ratio of 7.5 to 1. I cannot determine where the 16 to 1 number comes from, but I have to wonder why they calculated the wounded from an undocumented ratio instead of using a documented number for wounded.

It is easier to attack a messenger who is not quite accurate, so I do not want to leave that opening.

[anne]

Arne, you are completely fair and I am not. So, after a dinner and jazz night, I will look carefully at the problem again tomorrow. The problem is important, so I will assume I am wrong in my reading and work from there to convince myself otherwise. There is an academic paper that goes with Linda Bilmes' new work which I should be able to get in a few days unless there is an embargo till publication. I will try to be fairer.

[Bruce Hall]

I see the steam is still billowing.

The point I was making about the VA is that it has a large budget, but the staff is stretched because so many veterans use the facilities for treatments that could be provided closer to their own homes by either hospitals, clinics or family doctors... if the VA had a system in place like medicare for those purposes.

Then more personnel would be freed up to work with soldiers who needed continued treatment... from Iraq who were among those not completely treated in Iraq... or those from any previous military-related injuries.

The rest of the ranting here is like listening to protesters who believe the louder they shout the more meaningful their sounds.

BTW, I'm satified that my military service was honorable and I can call myself patriotic. Even if you haven't done so and want to say that my support of the war effort is wrong, I won't call you unpatriotic. Your concern for what is happening is reasonable. But, while there are economic consequences surrounding war, it is not about economics... it is about politics... always has been and always will.

So trying to justify stopping a war because of economic consequences is blowing into the wind. War is about politics and will. If either of those falter, then the war is abandoned. If you are against the war, then it is enough to just say that and that your political efforts are aimed to end it immediately. There will be consequences, both economic and political in the long term for an immediate pull-out... and I don't believe even Nancy Pelosi will vote for that.

[Movie Guy]

Linda Bilmes, January 5, 2007, LATimes op-ed:

"So far, more than 200,000 veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan have been treated at VA medical facilities - three times what the VA projected, according to a Government Accountability Office analysis." ..."At the same time, wounded veterans trying to obtain disability checks are being tied up in a bureaucratic nightmare. The Veterans Benefits Administration has a backlog of 400,000 pending claims - and rising."

Linda Blimes' statement on the VA pending claims backlog appears to provide a potentially misleading representation of the facts related to VA claims submitted by service members and veterans who served on active duty during the GWOT era, 2001-November 2005. Unless one ignores prior military conflicts and/or other active duty service claims, VA's claim priorities system, or assumes that an additional 365,000 plus claims are pending since November 2005, Blimes' statement appears to be constructed in such fashion as to distort the facts associated with GWOT era service and VA claims filed by service members and veterans. Otherwise, there has been a massive surge in pending VA claims related to GWOT era and other active duty service which have not been identified since October 2006 by researchers at George Washington University, among others who track such developments.

According to Department of Veterans Affairs FOIA requests by the National Security Archive, George Washington University, the number of pending VA claims filed by GWOT era active service U.S. military members as of 30 November 2005 (which may or may not be GWOT era related) was 30,579 claims (12,830 Reserves and 17,749 Active Duty). As of 30 November 2005, a total of 115,481 claims had been filed, 84,902 claims processed, 76,162 claims granted, 9,740 claims denied, and 30,579 claims pending. Pending claims can include refiling of requests which have been previously denied and may include multiple claims filed by military service members.

Another VA document focusing on the Gulf War forward era (those serving on 2 August 1990 and thereafter), and Gulf War Veterans Information System (GWVIS) cited by the National Security Archive, George Washington University, stated that as of 7 January 2006, there were 1,463,629 total VA claims filed within the reference period for conflicts and former active duty service, of which 185,403 were still pending. Moreover, the claims were submitted by some portion of an estimated veteran population of 4,219,985. It appears that some if not all GWOT era claims are included in such report totals.

A subsequent VA document released on 20 July 2006 (also provided by the National Security Archive, GWU) states that as of 26 June 2006 a total of 152,669 GWOT era veterans' claims had been submitted, of which 34,405 claims were pending. Claims pending "includes appealed and reopened claims. This also includes dairy issues, issues pending authorization, and issues pending acceptance." As stated, this "report only identifies GWOT veterans who have also filed a VA disability claim. Because many GWOT veterans had earlier periods of service, the claims identified in this report could have been filed and processed either prior to or subsequent to their GWOT deployment. VBA's computer systems do not contain any data that would allow us to attribute veterans' disabilities to a specific period of service or deployment. We are therefore not able to identify which of these veterans filed a claim for disabilities incurred during their actual overseas GWOT deployment."

The number of GWOT era service members' and veterans' VA claims pending actions increased from 30,579 to 34,405 from 30 November 2006 to 26 June 2006, representing a 12.51 percent increase in number of VA claims pending. Hopefully, the National Security Archive, George Washington University, will continue to provide important updates on this issue of concern.

More information available here:

Veterans Affairs Administration - GWOT
and Gulf War Claims as of October 10, 2006
The National Security Archive
George Washington University
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20061010/index.htm

[Movie Guy]

Troops screened as never before
October 18, 2005
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2005-10-18-troops-stress-side_x.htm

"The screening results show that the percentage of returning troops referred for follow-up medical or mental health treatment rose from 22% in 2003 to 35% in 2004. This year, slightly more than 28% of returning troops have required medical or mental health care."

"The percentage of female troops with health issues has been higher than that of men. Last year, 43% of returning women required follow-up medical or mental health care, compared with 36% of men. This year, about 33% of female servicemembers were referred for follow-up care, compared with 27% of men."

"In addition, a higher percentage of National Guard and Reserve troops have had health issues than those in active-duty forces, the survey shows."

"Forty-seven percent of National Guard troops and 45% of reservists required some kind of medical or mental health care last year, vs. 29% of active-duty troops. This year, 30% to 35% of Guard and Reserve troops needed health referrals, compared with 25% of active-duty servicemembers."

"The numbers suggest that the severity of the war increased after 2003, when much of the fighting had been concentrated around the initial invasion of Iraq by U.S.-led forces in March and April. As the insurgency took root in 2004, the percentage of U.S. military personnel who witnessed someone being killed or wounded rose from 36% in 2003 to 50% in 2004. It is 47% this year."

"The percentage of troops who said they needed stress-related therapy after war duty has almost doubled since the first year of the war. But that portion remains small, rising from about 3% in 2003 to about 6% this year."

"The actual proportion of troops with stress-related mental health problems may be far higher. In an anonymous survey in 2003, Army researchers found that 15% to 17% of front-line troops suffered depression, anxiety or post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD)."

[Movie Guy]

DoD OIF (Iraq war) Records

On the matter of hostile combat and non-hostile deaths and combat wounded, it's appropriate for some comparisons between Linda Bilmes' current and previous assertions and DoD official statistical records as well as DoD's Landstuhl Medical Center inbound patient traffic from OIF, the Iraq war.

GLOBAL WAR ON TERRORISM - OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM (OIF)
March 19, 2003 Through December 2, 2006
by Casualty Category within Service
Military Casualty Information
DoD Personnel & Procurement Statistics
Statistical Information Analysis Division
Defense Manpower Data Center
U.S. Department of Defense
http://siadapp.dior.whs.mil/personnel/CASUALTY/OIF-Total.pdf

Hostile deaths:
Killed in Action - 1,766
Died of Wounds - 545
Died While Missing in Action - 7
Died While Captured - 2
Total hostile deaths - 2,320

Non-hostile deaths:
Accident - 374
Illness - 56
Homicide - 12
Self-Inflicted - 93
Undetermined - 7
Pending determination - 26
Total non-hostile deaths - 568

Total hostile and non-hostile deaths - 2,888

Wounded:
Wounded - No Medical Air Transport Required - 15,387
Wounded - Medical Air Transport Required - 6,670
Total wounded - 22,057

Injured and individuals with diseases:
Non-hostile injuries and diseases not requiring medivac - not identified
Non-hostile injuries requiring medivac - 6,640
Diseases - Medical Air Transport Required - 18,183
Total injured and individuals with diseases - not identified

Military Personnel Medical Air Transported from Iraq to
Landstuhl Regional Medical Center or Continential United States
Wounded - Medical Air Transport Required - 6,670
Non-Hostile Injuries - Medical Air Transport Required - 6,640
Diseases - Medical Air Transport Required - 18,183
Total Medical Air Transported from Iraq - 31,493

Total - non-mortal casualties - 46,880

Total seriously combat wounded based on medivac - 6,670
Total seriously non-hostile injured based on medivac - 6,640
Total seriously impaired by disease based on medivac - 18,183

Total seriously combat wounded and seriously non-hostile injured - 13,310

Total seriously combat wounded, seriously non-hostile
injured, and seriously impaired by disease - 31,493

-----

GLOBAL WAR ON TERRORISM - OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM (OIF)
October 7, 2001 Through December 30, 2006
Casualty Summary by Reason Code
Military Casualty Information
DoD Personnel & Procurement Statistics
Statistical Information Analysis Division
Defense Manpower Data Center
U.S. Department of Defense
http://siadapp.dior.whs.mil/personnel/CASUALTY/gwot_reason.pdf

OIF hostile wounded in action - 22,714
OIF hostile deaths - 2,405
OIF non-hostile deaths - 584
OIF total hostile and non-hostile deaths - 2,989

----

DOD Instruction
NUMBER 1300.18
December 18, 2000
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/dod/i130018x.xml

-----

Number of wounded treated at Landstuhl drops after two-month spike
November 19, 2006
http://www.estripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=40630&archive=true

"Landstuhl Regional Medical Center saw a two-month spike in the number of wounded troops it treated in September and October, but the rate has dropped this month, hospital officials say."

"Landstuhl saw 260 servicemembers with combat injuries in October, the fourth deadliest month for U.S. troops in Iraq with 105 deaths. A nearly identical number — 261 — were treated in September, even though there were only 71 deaths."

"Those treated during September and October were a 40 percent increase from August when the hospital had 186 battle-injured troops. But November is on pace to have a significant drop: As of Friday, the hospital had seen 86 battle-injured servicemembers, which puts November on pace for about 150 battle-injured troops this month."

[Movie Guy]

The LATimes reported on December 30, 2006:

"The Marine deaths reported Friday brought the number of U.S. military fatalities in Iraq since the March 2003 invasion to 2,996, icasualties.org said, with 816 of them occurring this year. Last year, 846 American service members died; in 2004, the figure was 848."

"The number of U.S. wounded is also down this year — 5,676 compared with 5,947 in 2005 and 8,001 in 2004."

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-iraq30dec30,0,6007737.story?coll=la-opinion-underdog

[Movie Guy]

Linda Bilmes, January 5, 2007, LATimes op-ed:

"THE NEW YEAR brought with it the 3,000th American death in Iraq. But what's equally alarming — and far less well known — is that for every fatality in Iraq, there are 16 injuries. That's an unprecedented casualty level. In the Vietnam and Korean wars, by contrast, there were fewer than three people wounded for each fatality. In World Wars I and II, there were less than two. That means we now have more than 50,000 wounded Iraq war soldiers."

In the interests of clarity, let's review some of Linda Bilmes' previous statements on U.S. military deaths and wounded in OIF, the Iraq war campaign.

** The numerous links for the following references are not included to avoid posting problems with typepad, but as requested I will separately post any links requested by those reading this thread.

----

Sixteen months ago, Bilmes stated:

"The human cost of the more than 2,000 American military personnel killed and 14,500 wounded so far in Iraq and Afghanistan is all too apparent."

The Trillion-Dollar War
by Linda Bilmes
The New YorkTimes
August 20, 2005

----

Twelve months ago, Bilmes and Stiglitz stated (not a direct quote as such requires permission with this particular document):

Within the working paper, subsequently presented to the ASSA meetings in January 2006, it is indicated that over 16,000 military personnel had been wounded (severly wounded was not stated in this particular paragraph reference) and over 2,000 service members had died since May 1, 2003 (near the beginning of the Iraq war in March 2003) through December 2005. Moreover, it is indicated that the preparation of the working paper relieved heavily upon the Wallstern and Kosec paper (September 2005) for estimates of wounded military personnel.

The Economic Costs of the Iraq War: An Appraisal
Three Years after the Beginning of the Conflict
Linda Bilmes and Joseph Stiglitz
Working Paper Number: RWP06-002
Submitted: 01/11/2006

----

Twelve months ago, Bilmes and Stiglitz stated:

"These include lifetime healthcare and disability benefits for returning veterans and special round-the-clock medical attention for many of the 16,300 Americans who already have been seriously wounded."

War's Stunning Price Tag
by Linda Bilmes and Joseph Stiglitz
January 17, 2006

----

Craig Lambert, Harvard magazine, reported in May 2006 (including quotes from Bilmes):

"But there are also the costs of caring for more than 17,000 wounded soldiers (to date) - 25 percent of whom have crippling conditions such as brain injuries and multiple amputations and will need lifelong medical attention. Another 25 percent have suffered major injuries, including severe burns, deafness, and total or partial blindness. Then there are the medical expenditures for all veterans, borne by the Veterans Administration: one-third of those back from Iraq, for example, have required some mental-health counseling."

"There are also disability payments. In the first Gulf War, 550,000 soldiers fought and 400 were wounded in a conflict that lasted only one month. Even so, 169,000 of those veterans, or about 30 percent, are still claiming veterans’ disability for various ailments, costing $2 billion annually. The researchers used an “extremely conservative” disability estimate of one-third of veterans to calculate their Iraq projections, though, as Bilmes notes, “it could become two-thirds or even all veterans. And all of these costs are there even if we pull out tomorrow. We haven’t paid it yet, but we already owe it."

The $2-Trillion War
by Craig Lambert
May/June 2006
Harvard Magazine

----

In the Fourth Quarter 2006 issue of the Milken Institute Review released in December 2006, Bilmes and Stiglitz stated:

"More than 2,500 American troops have died and close to 20,000 have been wounded since Operation Iraqi Freedom began. And the $2 trillion number – the sum of the current and future budgetary costs along with the economic impact of lives lost, jobs interrupted and oil prices driven higher by political uncertainty in the Middle East – now seems low."

"About 20 percent of survivors have suffered major head or spinal injuries, 18 percent incurred serious wounds and an additional 6 percent are amputees. The estimated 7,000 veterans with severe brain, spinal, amputation and other serious injuries will require a lifetime of round-the-clock care."

"In fiscal year 2003, the average monthly cost of operations was $4.4 billion, while today operations are running about $10 billion a month."

e n c o r e
by linda bilmes and joseph e. stiglitz
The Milken Institute Review
Fourth Quarter 2006
Issue published December 2006

----

In December 2006, Bilmes stated in response to CNN's Jack Cafferty:

CAFFERTY: "Can you compare the war in Iraq with the other military conflicts we've been involved? And I'm thinking in terms of, for example, in Vietnam, we lost 58,000 soldiers. We've lost almost 3,000 in Iraq. And yet the number of wounded soldiers, as a percentage of the overall force, the people who come back with devastating injuries seems to be much higher than perhaps it was in some of the earlier conflicts."

BILMES: "Well, that's right, Jack. In the -- in the Vietnam War, there were three soldiers wounded for every one killed. In Iraq, there are eight soldiers wounded who come back seriously wounded for every one killed. Now, obviously the improvements in body armor are a good thing, but it does mean that there is a large cost to taking care of our wounded veterans and this is what we had not anticipated and what the Veterans' Administration has been overwhelmed with."

CNN IN THE MONEY
Aired December 3, 2006 - 15:00 ET

----

In January 2006, Bilmes stated:

"THE NEW YEAR brought with it the 3,000th American death in Iraq. But what's equally alarming — and far less well known — is that for every fatality in Iraq, there are 16 injuries. That's an unprecedented casualty level. In the Vietnam and Korean wars, by contrast, there were fewer than three people wounded for each fatality. In World Wars I and II, there were less than two. That means we now have more than 50,000 wounded Iraq war soldiers."

The battle of Iraq's wounded
by Linda Bilmes
LATimes
January 5, 2007

----

Bilmes' assertions regarding U.S. military servicemembers deaths to wounded ratios in Iraq:

1. "In Iraq, there are eight soldiers wounded who come back seriously wounded for every one killed."

2. "...for every fatality in Iraq, there are 16 injuries."

3. "THE NEW YEAR brought with it the 3,000th American death in Iraq. ...That means we now have more than 50,000 wounded Iraq war soldiers."

----

Personal observations:

Note that Linda Bilmes is stating, in her own words, that the number of wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan increased from 14,500 as of August 20, 2005 to 50,000 in Iraq as of 5 January 2007. Bilmes is indicating that a minimum of 35,500 or more military personnel were wounded in Iraq during the sixteen month period since August 2005. This would indicate that, on average for math purposes, over 2218 military personnel were wounded per month during the sixteen month period. This simply did not occur based on an analysis of DoD OIF records or any combination of news media reports.

Based on Bilmes' claim of 50,000 wounded, Bilmes is asserting that during the 46 months of the Iraq war an average of 1086.95 or 1087 military personnel were wounded per month. This figure is vastly higher than any figures reported by any element of DoD or news media sources.

Bilmes utilized a ratio of 16.66667 in reaching her hostile combat and non-hostile deaths, 3,000, to wounded military personnel, 50,000, presentation.

Further, Bilmes and Stiglitz stated in the Fourth Quarter 2006 issue of the Milken Institute Review: "More than 2,500 American troops have died and close to 20,000 have been wounded since Operation Iraqi Freedom began." While the date of the Milken Institute Review article can be narrowed down based on the 2,500 plus death count cited (combat and non-hostile deaths), the more important issue is the statement that "close to 20,000 have been wounded since Operation Iraqi Freedom began." As such, Bilmes is asserting that there has been a large increase in the number wounded (her January 2007 claim of 50,000 wounded based on 3,000 dead (combat and non-hostile deaths) vs. "close to 20,000 wounded in OIF when 2,500 plus military deaths (combat and non-hostile deaths) had occurred. That's a jump of over 30,000 in wounded while the increase in deaths has increased approximately 500 or less. That is not based on Bilmes' implied ratio of 16.66 used to establish the 50,000 wounded claim during January 2007, but rather it requires a much larger ratio of 60 to 1. That is to say, under this consideration, for every U.S. servicemember who died in Iraq since the combined death toll was 2,500 or more, 60 U.S. servicemembers were wounded. Allowing for a broader consideration, one could assume that the 60 to 1 ratio included wounded, injured, and disease impaired U.S. servicemembers during the additional 500 or fewer deaths period concerned. Again, the lack of supporting DoD/VA/other sources documentation could make this broadened consideration similarly unrealistic as assuming that the number of wounded increased by a ratio of 60 to 1.

[Movie Guy]

Bilmes' assertions versus DoD OIF (Iraq war) records:

Bilmes states that eight soldiers are seriously wounded for every soldier killed. That is not true based on DoD OIF records. The ratio is 2.875, not 8.

DoD's number for seriously combat wounded based on medivac is 6,670 as of 2 December 2006, and, in the Iraq combat theater, this is the measure of seriously wounded.

DoD OIF records indicate that the ratio of combat deaths (killed in action, died of wounds, and other categories identified) to seriously combat wounded (medivac) is 2.875, not 8 as Bilmes states. In other words, fewer than three military personnel are seriously wounded for every servicemember who dies as a result of combat action. Even if rounded up, the ratio is 3 to 1, not 8 to 1. So, there are five servicemembers per combat death not accounted for with Bilmes' methodology according to DoD OIF records.

If one takes into account all hostile combat wounded identified by DoD OIF records as of 30 December 2006, 22,714 wounded and 2405 combat deaths, the ratio of combat deaths to total combat wounded is 9.44491, not 16 or 16.66 as stated or indicated by Bilmes. This ratio does, though, more closely match Bilmes' ratio of 8 for "seriously wounded".

Bilmes does not state any facts to support her "seriously wounded" claim in articles and interviews where quotes are available.

----

Based on the current death toll of hostile combat and non-hostile deaths of U.S. servicemembers (Bilmes uses the figure of 3,000 dead, not distinguishing between causes of death - hostile combat killed and non-hostile sources of death), Bilmes states that the ratio of seriously wounded to dead is eight to one (assuming Bilmes failed to distinguish between the types of deaths involved). This is not true based on DoD OIF records.

DoD OIF records indicate that the ratio of hostile and non-hostile deaths to seriously wounded is 2.309, not 8 as stated by Bilmes. Similarly, DoD OIF records indicate that the ratio of hostile and non-hostile deaths to seriously wounded and seriously injured is 4.62, not 8. Going one step further, DoD OIF records indicate that the ratio of hostile and non-hostile deaths to seriously wounded, seriously injured, and individuals with diseases requiring medivac (removal from theater) is 10.90, not 8 (Bilmes' deaths to "seriously wounded" ratio) or 16 (Bilmes' deaths to "injured" ratio) or 16.66 (Bilmes' actual 3,000 deaths to 50,000 wounded ratio; Bilmes did not state this ratio, but this the ratio if one performs the math to determine the ratio). So, there is no DoD OIF source match with Bilmes' assertion. While this combined casualty figure is larger than Bilmes' ratio of combat and non-hostile deaths to "seriously wounded", it is not DoD's policy to count individuals with seriously impared diseases requiring removal from theater as part of the DoD "seriously combat wounded" category of theater casualties.

----

Based on the current number of hostile combat and non-hostile deaths of U.S. servicemembers involved in OIF (Bilmes uses the figure of 3,000 dead, not distinguishing between causes of death - combat killed in action and non-hostile sources of death), Bilmes states that the ratio of injured to dead is sixteen to one. This does not appear to be true based on DoD OIF records.

Bilmes does not specify the types or severity of injuries she is considering in her claim that the ratio of OIF military personnel injured to hostile combat and non-hostile deaths. Logically, Bilmes would be carving too wide a path for combat impairment in identifying such a ratio based on figures other than seriously injured, or perhaps seriously injured and seriously impaired by disease (two different issues, though the result is the same) or a combination of all three considerations.

As such, let's calculate the ratios for each consideration.

The ratio of non-hostile seriously injured (medivac) to hostile combat and non-hostile deaths is 2.299 based on DoD OIF records as of December 2006, not 16 as stated by Bilmes.

The ratio of non-hostile seriously injured (medivac) and seriously impaired by disease (medivac) to hostile combat and non-hostile deaths is 8.595, not 16 as stated by Bilmes.

Let's take it a step further. The ratio of seriously non-hostile injured, seriously impaired by disease, and seriously combat wounded to hostile combat and non-hostile deaths is 10.90, not 8 (Bilmes' deaths to "seriously wounded" ratio) or 16 (Bilmes' deaths to "injured" ratio) or 16.66 (Bilmes' actual 3,000 deaths to 50,000 wounded ratio; Bilmes did not state this ratio, but this the ratio if one does the math division to determine the ratio).

----

Based on the current death toll of hostile combat and non-hostile deaths of U.S. servicemembers involved in OIF (Bilmes uses the figure of 3,000 dead, not distinguishing between causes of death - hostile combat killed and non-hostile sources of death), Bilmes states that the number of wounded is 50,000 as of 7 January 2007. This is not true based on DoD OIF records.

In the LATimes op-ed piece, Bilmes states that the "for every fatality in Iraq, there are 16 injuries". Bilmes then states, "That's an unprecedented casualty level. In the Vietnam and Korean wars, by contrast, there were fewer than three people wounded for each fatality. In World Wars I and II, there were less than two. That means we now have more than 50,000 wounded Iraq war soldiers."

Bilmes mixes language as Peter Schaffer has pointed out. DoD maintains different medical and casualty records coding for combat wounded, non-hostile injured, and seriously imparied by disease. This is similar to the medical coding that U.S. hospitals utilize to categorize patients' conditions upon admission for treatment and/or subsequent care and recovery. So, there shouldn't be meritorious complaints by readers or posters as to Bilmes' assertions or intentions as she should be experienced enough in conducting such research to understand the differences when reviewing DoD OIF records as such distinctions are clearly identified.

In mixing language, Bilmer jumps from "injuries" to "casualty level" to "wounded", all within the scope of her brief two paragraph unsupported presentation on the U.S. military deaths to wounded analysis.

Unfortunately, Bilmes twists the historical casualty data around slightly (read her remarks above) in comparing the wars of WWI, WWII, Korea, and Vietnam. It is as though Bilmes doesn't fully understand the noted improvements, though she mentions them briefing later on in the op-ed. Bilmes disputes the Dod OIF records, claiming much higher ratios and numbers for wounded U.S. servicemembers but did not identify her references in the January 2007 op-ed.

The reality is that during WWII, 30.3 percent of military personnel wounded in combat died. During the Korean War, 24.1 percent of military personnel wounded in combat died. That percentage declined to 23.6 percent during the Vietnam war due primarily to intheater medivac via helicopter as well as improved medical procedures including initial treatement. In the Iraq war, 10.58 percent of military personnel wounded in combat have died as of 30 December 2006. Instead of stating these percentages, Bilmes asserts the claim that the number of "injured" has reached an unprescedented level compared to the other wars cited without any proof of her claim. If Bilmes is attempting to assert that the number of wounded or seriously wounded has significantly increased, she has not proven her case. DoD OIF records indicate that the number of hostile combat seriously wounded to combat deaths is a ratio of 2.875 to 1, not 8 as Bilmer asserts, meaning that for every U.S. service member killed or who subsequently died of combat wounds, there are 2.875 or 3 seriously wounded as of 2 December 2006. DoD OIF records also indicate the number of hostile combat wounded (all combat wounded) to combat deaths is a ratio of 9.50 as of 2 December 2006, subsequently updated as a ratio of 9.44 as of 30 December 2006. The DoD statistics are combat death to wounded ratios documented in DoD OIF records and further substantiated correctly or not by various news media reports, not the ratios of 8 and 16.66 as indicated by Bilmes.

Bilmes does not provide any reference whatsoever for her claim of "16 injuries" for every U.S. military personnel fatality in Iraq (if such is her claim). Based on that potential claim, the number of injured would be 48,000.

Bilmes does not state the number of wounded as 48,000, but rather jumps to 50,000 without explaining the ratio factor she substituted for such a claim. In reality, the ratio factor for hostile and non-hostile deaths (Bilmes' 3000 number) to wounded that Bilmes applied is 16.66667, not 16.

DoD OIF records state that as of 30 December 2006 the number of wounded in action in Iraq was 22,714 U.S. military personnel. These are fully documented and traceable statistical numbers that can be identified in summary form without violating medical records privacy by submitting, as necessary, FOIA requests such as have been submitted by the researchers at the National Security Archive, George Washington University.

DoD has identified the number of seriously injured requiring medivac as 6,640 military personnel as of 2 December 2006. Similarly, DoD has identified the number of seriously combat wounded requiring medivac from theater as 6,670 military personnel as of 2 December 2006.

How Bilmes arrives at 50,000 wounded versus the DoD records number of 22,714 is not explained by Bilmes. The difference is an significant overstatement of an additional 27,285 wounded as compared to DoD OIF records of 22,714 total wounded in combat.

If the number of combat wounded identified by DoD, 22,714, is combined with the number of non-hostile seriously injured, 6,640, the resulting total of 29,354 differs from Bilmer's "50,000 wounded" figure by 20,646. If this is Bilmes' misstated intention, she does not explain the discrepancy.

It is possible that Bilmes is attempting to state the number of hostile and non-hostile casualties in Iraq. If so, that figure is DoD's OIF total non-mortal casualties, 46,880, which does not match Bilmes' assertion of 50,000 wounded. The figure is much closer, though.

Another possible approach to explain Bilmes' misstated "wounded" assertion would be to consider the number of combat wounded, 22,714, combined with the number of non-hostile seriously injured, 6,640, and seriously impaired by disease, 18,183. The resulting total is 47,537, which still represents a discrepancy of 2,463 from Bilmes' "50,000 wounded" figure. Again, this figure is much closer to the "50,000 wounded" assertion by Bilmes.

Bilmes does not identify her reference source(s) for the supposed "50,000 wounded" assertion.

[Movie Guy]

Casualties of the conflict in Iraq since 2003
Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_conflict_in_Iraq_since_2003

Information as available on Friday.

U.S. Armed Forces:

Dead:

As of 1 January 2007, 3,003 dead.

Wounded in action:

As of 1 January 2007, 22,565 wounded in action, of which 10,107 were unable to return to duty within 72 hours. 6,640 non-hostile injuries and 18,183 diseases (both requiring medical air transport).

As of 30 September 2006, 725 American troops have had limbs amputated from wounds received in Iraq and Afghanistan.

A 2006 study by Walter Reed Medical Center, which serves more critically injured soldiers than most VA hospitals, concluded that 62 percent of patients there had suffered a brain injury.

Injured/fallen ill:

The Pentagon reports that more than 1 in 4 returning U.S. soldiers have health problems that require medical or mental health treatment.

Many U.S. veterans of the Iraq War have reported a range of serious health issues, including tumors, daily blood in urine and stool, sexual dysfunction, migranes, frequent muscle spasms, and other symptoms similar to the debilitating symptoms of "Gulf War Syndrome" reported by many veterans of the 1991 Gulf War, which some believe is related to the United States' use of radioactive depleted uranium.

In addition, the study on posttraumatic stress disorder] found that the percentage of troops suffering from PTSD increased by between 7-10% after deployment to Iraq, which would represent 25,000 to 35,000 initial period cases of PTSD among the roughly 350,000 U.S. troops who have served in Iraq.

U.S. military contractors:

Some of the 18,000-20,000 private military contractors and armed guards in Iraq, many of them working for the U.S. Department of Defense, have also died - According to an October 10, 2006 Reuters article there have been 647 contractor deaths (civilian and security-related) of various nationalities (including from the USA) as of September 30, 2006. They are employees of U.S. government contractors and subcontractors.

[Movie Guy]

In my opinion, Michael Munk states the current Iraq war casualty situation more clearly and accurately than have many authors. There are a few differences in the data presented based on more recent updates, but I concur with and support his general observations.

The Real Cost of the Iraq War: 50,000 U.S. Casualties
By Michael Munk, retired political scientist, Portland, Oregon
AlterNet, January 4, 2007
http://www.alternet.org/story/46161/

"To bring the human cost to Americans of the invasion and occupation of Iraq home, antiwar groups across the country are marking mark the 3,000th death of a member of its military components (at this writing the total is 3,004)."

"But by focusing only on the number of dead Americans we are being manipulated along with the media and public by the administration's determination to minimize the cost in blood of establishing permanent military bases in the heart of the Middle East oil patch."

"That public relations strategy consists of prohibiting images of the dead and wounded returning home and those of U.S. casualties in Iraq in the U.S. media as well as aggressive efforts to prevent such coverage by foreign media --including deadly attacks on Al-Jazeera reporters and offices. It also plants stories and interviews, leaks to FOX and other Pentagon-friendly reporters and provides generous payola to foreign (especially Iraqi) news sources."

"Still, the most consistent propaganda effort since the invasion aims to keep public attention away from the actual amount of blood being shed by American military victims of the war and their families. That cost now exceeds 50,000 casualties -- a far cry from the 3,000 to which most of the public is restricted to know."

"Casualties" in the military sense is the total number made unavailable for duty from all causes, including deaths and wounds suffered in combat as well as injuries, accidents and illness in a war "theater" such as "Operation Iraqi Freedom" (the official Pentagon name for the invasion and occupation). So whether caused by "hostile" (24,965 as of Dec.27) or "non-hostile" (25,406 as of Dec. 2) causes, the Pentagon's own web sites record a toll of more than 50,000 so far in "OIF."

"However, for most Americans who depend on mass media for information, the approaching number of only 3,000 is the only measure of the loss of life and limb the media allow them to know. For the rest of us, here are the facts: The Pentagon reports deaths on a daily basis at although its own total always lags behind the wire services number because it insists survivors must be informed before a dead solider, marine, sailor or airman can be added to the casualty lists. But the Pentagon only reports the wounded on the weekly basis (usually on Tuesdays) at the same site and it reports the non fatal casualties from non hostile causes only monthly and on another website."

"From those sources, we can count U.S. military occupation forces casualties as more than 50,371 as of Dec. 27. The total (as above) includes 2,400 killed and 22,565 wounded (which includes both severely and less severely wounded) by what the Pentagon classifies as "hostile" causes. By that date, another 583 military personnel had died from "non hostile" causes such as accidents, suicides (there were 99 "self inflicted fatalities") and illness and, as of Dec. 2, another 24,823 had been injured or become ill seriously enough to require medical evacuation. According the excellent site Iraq Coalition Casualty Count, another 147 U.S. "contractors" have also been killed since they invaded Iraq."

"I urge opponents of the war to make the public aware that the actual human cost of the invasion and occupation of Iraq exceeds 50,000 troops and their families who have suffered death and often life-long disability -- of whom the 3,000 are just one tragic part."

[Movie Guy]

Iraq War U.S. military combat deaths and wounded

OIF - U.S. Deaths by Month
http://icasualties.org/oif/US_Chart.aspx

Fatalities by Month

2003
Mar - 65
Apr - 74
May - 37
Jun - 30
Jul - 48
Aug - 35
Sep - 31
Oct - 44
Nov - 82
Dec - 40

2004
Jan - 47
Feb - 20
Mar - 52
Apr - 135
May - 80
Jun - 42
Jul - 54
Aug - 66
Sep - 80
Oct - 63
Nov - 137
Dec - 72

2005
Jan - 107
Feb - 58
Mar - 35
Ap r- 52
May - 80
Jun - 78
Jul - 54
Aug - 85
Sep - 49
Oct - 96
Nov - 84
Dec - 68

2006
Jan - 62
Feb - 55
Mar - 31
Apr - 76
May - 69
Jun - 61
Jul - 43
Aug - 65
Sep - 72
Oct - 106
Nov - 69
Dec - 115

2007
Jan - 2

Total - 3006

-----

OIF - U.S. Wounded by Month
http://icasualties.org/oif/woundedchart.aspx

Wounded by Month*

These numbers are based on data released by the DoD. This data is updated the first and last week of each month.

2003
Mar - 202
Apr - 340
May - 55
Jun - 147
Jul - 226
Aug - 181
Sep - 247
Oct - 413
Nov - 336
Dec - 261

2004
Jan- 189
Feb - 150
Mar - 324
Apr - 1214
May - 759
Jun - 586
Jul - 552
Aug - 895
Sep - 708
Oct - 650
Nov - 1430
Dec - 544

2005
Jan - 498
Feb - 415
Mar - 371
Apr - 596
May - 575
Jun - 511
Jul - 477
Aug - 541
Sep - 545
Oc t -605
Nov - 400
Dec - 413

2006
Jan - 289
Feb - 341
Mar - 497
Apr - 433
May - 441
Jun - 459
Jul - 522
Aug - 586
Sep - 789
Oct - 776
Nov - 543

Total - 22,032

* The update has not been posted.