A truly tragic story is in the news over here -- a veteran, happy to be home, shot some celebratory shots in the air. We are talking about the air of NYC ... and in the process, he shot a woman/mother in the eye, killing her. The heartbroken father, a falafel vendor (really), is bringing her back to the old country with help of donations. The veteran is being charged with manslaughter and a few other things. One point: he didn't mean to kill her, but he did. She is still dead.
This is somewhat connected to a piece in Salon, talking about a letter by some Democrats in Congress to the President (well, it's wrong then, right?) about how the Pentagon is supplying much too low causality numbers. There is nothing new about their calculus, but this doesn't change the problem, and it is particularly troubling now -- the Bush and Clinton Pentagon might have used a similar definition, but the numbers are so much higher this time around. And, they are still injuried, often seriously, no matter what.
We are not talking about trivial numbers here:
Pentagon casualty reports show 2,390 service members dead from Iraq and Afghanistan and over 16,000 wounded. By far the vast majority of the wounded and dead are from Iraq.
But by Dec. 8, 2005, the military had evacuated another 25,289 service members from Iraq and Afghanistan for injuries or illnesses not caused directly by enemy bullets or bombs, according to the U.S. Transportation Command. ...
[T]he statistics seem to show that a lot of those health problems are war-related. For example, nearly 37,000 have mental disorders, including nearly 16,000 who have been diagnosed with posttraumatic stress disorder. Over 46,000 veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan receiving benefits from the V.A. have musculoskeletal problems. These are all veterans who within the last four years were considered by the military to be mentally and physically fit enough to fight.
Or from the letter itself:
As you know, more than one in four U.S. troops have come home from the Iraq war with health problems that require medical or mental health treatment. Thus, with more than 300,000 troops having served in Iraq, this amounts to at least 50,000 cases of mental trauma. Moreover, 101,000 of the 431,000 troops who have returned home from service in Iraq and Afghanistan and who have separated from the military, have sought help. This figure shows the Pentagon's official Iraq casualty count of 2,082 U.S. troops killed, and 15,477 wounded as of today, to be inaccurate by several multiples. What we cannot understand is why you are only reporting the total American casualty figure at just over 15,000 when you know that this figure is not an accurate representation of the facts and does not represent the entire picture of American lives affected by the war. We also need to understand where your numbers are coming from and how you arrived at them given the facts and data that has been released from the Pentagon.
As with the national security warrants, maybe all of this is worth it. But, a true republic requires an full and open (or at least a fair facsimile) airing of such facts, so we can obtain a picture of what is going on and decide for ourselves if it is worth it ... and/or to figure out how to handle the effects. But, even though some suggest the news only talks about bad news, the true picture of the true trauma resulting from this war -- not even including the families and so forth -- is not in any way fully reported. This is so even when bare death numbers ... five here, ten there ... are referenced in passing.
The substance of what is going on is troubling enough, but the process ... and like law, democracy is ultimately about due process ... is even worse. A letter in the NYT Review of Books noted that the most troubling aspect of Republicans in Congress today is actually boring, but ultimately quite serious matters like corruption of the rules and budget process. Thus, a book that targeted this was ultimately more important than those with "Bush" and "lies" in the title (Off Center, which -- from the accounts I read -- does sounds boring). And, part of the process is knowing what is going on and really discussing it.
Is this really too much to ask?
---
Note: C-SPAN does yeoman work in this area. Over the weekend, the network re-aired some interviews and coverage it filmed in early '05 from Walter Reed, including talks with various people injured in Iraq (and I guess, Afghanistan). One, Maj. Tammy Duckworth later became one of about ten (all but one Democrat) Iraq veterans who will run for Congress later this year.
Some story ... her father also received a purple heart and happened to be buried in Arlington National Cemetary around the time of the interview. She also was not going to let some terrorist who got lucky to change her life. Another soldier, younger guy, talked about how he was fighting for freedom. Both noted they wanted to stay in the military, though a third said, no, I think I'll get my education and spend more time with the family. Powerful stuff with a human face.
Apples and oranges -- I recently listened to a couple announcements of Supreme Court decisions from the bench available at Oyez. Also, one oral argument that was in effect closed captioned. As a small step, would it be too hard to allow C-SPAN to air these? I noted a few weeks back that the front part of the C-SPAN audio on the FAIR orals was Justice Thomas announcing a relatively obscure case as well as accepting a few lawyers to the SC bar. It was a nice touch, even if it was only put in since it would be too much of pain to edit out the first few minutes of the audio spool.
I apologize for putting the two together, in a sense, since they really are not comparable ... except the value of openness and the potential of C-SPAN.