http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/06/wa...hp&oref=slogin
Quote:
|
Among the 513,000 active-duty soldiers who have served in Iraq since the invasion of 2003, more than 197,000 have deployed more than once, and more than 53,000 have deployed three or more times, according to a separate set of statistics provided this week by Army personnel officers. The percentage of troops sent back to Iraq for repeat deployments would have to increase in the months ahead. (...) Since the study was distributed last month, it has become a central topic of high-level internal discussions within the Army, and its findings have been accepted by Army leaders, senior Pentagon and military officials say. (...) the ground forces risk an unacceptable level of retirements of sergeants — the key leaders of the small-unit operations — and of experienced captains, who represent the future of the Army’s officer corps. (...) Beyond the Army, members of the Joint Chiefs have also told the president that the continued troop commitment to Iraq means that there is a significant level of risk should another crisis erupt elsewhere in the world. Any mission could be carried out successfully, the chiefs believe, but the operation would be slower, longer and costlier in lives and equipment than if the armed forces were not so strained.
|
From a german newspaper source from where the NYT artcile was linked: after the first tour, 12% of troops suffer from posttraumatic stress, after the second tour: 18%. This study now says, after the third tour, the numbers rises to one in four.
These numbers must be added to the list of wounded soldiers. they are not to be excluded because the affected individuals do not bleed from open wounds. Ergo: the humnan cost of the war for the US forces is much higher than officially stated.
The longterm internal strategic cost of Captains turning their back on the army in considerable numbers I have pointed out already 2 or 3 weeks ago. And who would dare to blame them? I don't and so noone else should do as well.