This essay is being written during the first week in March, 2007. I am assuming that by this time every American knows about the scandal at the Walter Reed medical facilities in Washington. The commanding general of the hospital, as well as his successor, and the Secretary of the Army have been relieved of their duties, which is to say that they have been fired. Among the abuses cited by Dana Priest and Anne Hull of the Washington Post were such things as post-operative patients being required to wheel their wheelchairs for substantial distances to attend morning formations. In the rain, they are forbidden by the Army to use umbrellas. The patients are in limbo as long as 18 months or more while the Army tries to figure out whether they should be returned to duty or if they are entitled to a disability pension. One brain-injured soldier was told, after serving in the Army for, I believe 18 years, that he was not entitled to a disability pension because the staff had come to the conclusion that he was a “slow” person when the Army took him in. In effect, the Army concluded that his brain injury suffered in Iraq had nothing to do with his slowness of thought. The series by Dana Priest and Anne Hull ran for two days and has caused major confrontations in the Army at the headquarters of the Walter Reed medical staff.
As far as can be determined, it seems to me that the patients were enlisted men. In some cases, because of their poor post-operative treatment, their wives or mothers had to leave their jobs in various parts of the country and come to Washington to try to care for them while they were in the facility. This is a scandal of enormous proportions.
I have a certain amount of bona fides to comment on this situation. During World War II, I served for a little more than three years as an enlisted man in this country, Africa, and Italy. My experience with the Army leads me to conclude that there are only two basic reasons for the conduct of the Army in this current scandal. The first point is that whenever an enlisted man seeks medical treatment, he has to overcome the Army’s innate belief that he is a malingerer. Soldiers who report for sick call are treated with suspicion. It is a matter of proving to the medical staff that the soldier is indeed sick and in need of medical attention and is not a malingerer.
The second reason for what has happened here is that when a soldier is discharged or is on the verge of discharge, the Army does not treat him generously. It is the Army’s view that everyone is attempting to cheat the system. Obviously if you start from the position that every soldier reporting for sick call is a potential malingerer, then it follows that those applying for benefits after having served their term are also trying to game the system.
I will give you a case in point, which is my own. There was an occasion in 1945 in Accra, British West Africa, which is now Ghana, when I knew that I had a dreadful case of malaria. At the time, I was the flight-line chief on the midnight shift. When I realized what my condition was, it was about eight in the morning and I attempted to report to sick call. My barracks was at least a half a mile from where the sick call was being held. I had no choice but to walk that half a mile and when I reached the sick call, I was a few minutes late. The enlisted medics told me to come back tomorrow. They did not take my temperature or feel my head or anything else; they told me, “Come back tomorrow.” When I started out of the door, I told them that I was going to the hospital on my own. When I reached the door, I collapsed. High fever is a hallmark of malaria. After walking from my barracks to the sick call, my temperature got the best of me and I fainted. With that, the two people who had told me to come back tomorrow raced to my side and escorted me to a jeep which took me to the hospital.
You see, at this point the medical personnel were trying to catch people attempting to game the Army system for caring for its soldiers. Soldiers reporting for sick call were treated with considerable suspicion. Typically, the Army takes an adversarial view with respect to its soldiers reporting for sick call.
Now let us turn to post-discharge treatment by the Army. Three months after my discharge, I was required to spend several days at a Veterans’ Administration hospital to deal with a case of pneumonia. A short time later, I applied for disability benefits for malaria and for other wounds suffered in North Africa and in Italy, because I was concerned that my condition would interfere with my employment. My residence was located some 20 miles from the Jefferson Barracks medical facility which treated former soldiers. The Army told me that I would have to prove that my medical condition was such that I could not work properly and in addition they scheduled one examination after another at Jefferson Barracks. At that time, I had no car. The Army had a recruiting office in downtown St. Louis about three blocks from where I worked. It was staffed with a physician and a nurse to look over new recruits joining the Army. The Army barred me from using that facility and instead, required me to the make the 20 mile trip to Jefferson Barracks which consumed the full day. After a short time, I got the message that the system was an adversarial one and I dropped my claim. I collected not one cent from the Army disability program.
What is happening today at Walter Reed has been going on at least since 1945, to my own personal knowledge. I suspect that it has been going on much, much longer. The medical staff in the American Army takes the view that enlisted men reporting disabilities are potential malingerers. It is the intention of those medical personnel to catch those malingerers and put them back on duty. This is in full accordance with the commanders who like to see everybody at work, sick or not. This adversarial attitude carries over when it comes to discharging post-operative soldiers, such as those at Walter Reed. And it also applies when they ask for benefits to recompense them for their injuries. The compensation is a small fraction of what a wounded man needs to get along. If my memory is correct, a Sergeant I know of, whose story appeared in the New York Times and who has a 100% disability, gets a grand total of $1800 a month. You can’t make many trips to Europe on $1800 a month.
The sum and the substance of this mess is that when the American Army medics meet the wounded soldiers, they are prepared for battle and the patients are to be returned to duty or driven off. This is a preposterous attitude, but as a former soldier who has endured the medical facilities of the U. S. Army and the Veterans’ Administration, I am here to tell you, that is what we have. And that adversarial attitude accounts for the disastrous mess we have at Walter Reed Army Hospital. For the military authorities to abandon wounded soldiers, particularly those with brain injuries, is the ultimate exercise in treachery. Every young man or woman who is contemplating a career in the American Army should recognize that when wounds or illness forces one to the sidelines, the Army is prepared to forget them. The wounds from the Iraq War are much more significant than those from the time when I was engaged in World War II. Brain injuries and the amputation of limbs seem to be much more prevalent than they were in World War II. These are frightening injuries and soldiers must be compensated for them. But even more, any person who elects to enlist in the Army, at this stage with war in Iraq taking place, is a candidate for an insane asylum. I have five grandchildren, all male. If any one of them elects to join the military services, which I doubt will ever happen, he will be forced to go through me, if I am still alive.
My friends, this is what the ill-advised war in Iraq has brought us. More than one objective observer has commented that the American Army is on the verge of being broken. And yet we have the politicians threatening to invade Iran with an army that is basically a phantom one.
I have dictated this essay in an attempt to introduce a degree of realism into what we now face with an army that is largely crippled. Cheerleading and political gymnastics won’t cut it any more. The American Army is in dreadful shape, which is exceeded only by the plight of its wounded soldiers who lack adequate medical care. Treachery is the unvarnished name of this exercise. May I say that this is a day that I thought would never come. The conditions that exist today are shameful beyond belief. And to think this has been going on, to my personal knowledge, since World War II.
The prospects for the future are threatening. The Congress has no guts for a fight nor does the Administration have any idea of changing its methods of operation. Before it is over, may I guarantee you that the United States is going to take one hell of a whipping before we set things right. When an army refuses to care for its wounded soldiers, it is a time for monumental change. Are there no men with courage to step forward and right this mess? Our Army represents the American people. Can we continue our concern about the Golden Globe awards and Anna Nicole Smith’s funeral while the dire situation takes place at our première Army medical institution, Walter Reed Hospital in Washington? Is there nothing that will arouse the American people to demand a fundamental change in the way the Army does its business? So far, no one has stepped forward to set things right. This is a national tragedy!
E. E. CARR
March 5, 2007
Essay 237
Postscript: This is an angry essay. Upon reviewing the first draft of the dictation, it seems to me that it is not angry enough. This morning, March 4, I listened to Bob Schieffer’s Face the Nation program in which he interviewed Anne Hull of the Washington Post. Ms. Hull is the co-author of the exposé that ripped the cover off of the disgraceful acts taking place at Walter Reed Hospital. In that interview, I was reminded that some of the post-operative patients who had suffered such things as brain injuries were being asked to provide proof that they had actually been in Iraq. One soldier brought in his purple heart. Another brought in pictures of himself and comrades in Iraq. All of this simply validates the idea that the United States Army takes an adversarial role in its treatment of its wounded soldiers. If I have one regret about this essay, it is that it is not angry enough. Subsequent events, such as the lying by Alberto Gonzales to the U.S. Congress, have driven the story far back in the newspapers or the story has been dropped. This is a dreadful shame that must be borne by the United States Army and this Administration.
EEC
~~~
Kevin’s commentary: Disgusting. If one cannot afford to take care of the veterans, one cannot afford to go to war. That calculation should be part of the cost consideration from square one and it’s clear that it is not.
Also, asking wounded veterans to provide proof that they were wounded on the field? Seriously? Does the army not keep any sort of records of these things? This is absolutely insane.