[Excerpted]  As the military scrambles to pour more soldiers into Iraq, a unit of the Army's 3rd Infantry Division at Fort Benning, Ga., is deploying troops with serious injuries and other medical problems, including GIs who doctors have said are medically unfit for battle. Some are too injured to wear their body armor, according to medical records.

"This is not right," said Master Sgt. Ronald Jenkins, who has been ordered to Iraq even though he has a spine problem that doctors say would be damaged further by heavy Army protective gear. "This whole thing is about taking care of soldiers," he said angrily. "If you are fit to fight you are fit to fight. If you are not fit to fight, then you are not fit to fight."

One female soldier with psychiatric issues and a spine problem has been in the Army for nearly 20 years. "My [health] is deteriorating," she said over dinner at a restaurant near Fort Benning. "My spine is separating. I can't carry gear." Her medical records include the note "unable to deploy overseas." Her status was also reviewed on Feb. 15. And she has been ordered to Iraq this week.

The captain interviewed by Salon also requested anonymity because he fears retribution. He suffered a back injury during a previous deployment to Iraq as an infantry platoon leader. A Humvee accident "corkscrewed my spine," he explained. Like the female soldier, he is unable to wear his protective gear, and like her he too was ordered to Iraq after his meeting with the division surgeon and brigade surgeon on Feb. 15. He is still at Fort Benning and is fighting the decision to send him to Baghdad. "It is a numbers issue with this whole troop surge," he claimed. "They are just trying to get those numbers."

Another soldier contacted Salon by telephone last week expressed considerable anxiety, in a frightened tone, about deploying to Iraq in her current condition. (She also wanted to remain anonymous, fearing retribution.) An incident during training several years ago injured her back, forcing doctors to remove part of her fractured coccyx. She suffers from degenerative disk disease and has two ruptured disks and a bulging disk in her back. While she said she loves the Army and would like to deploy after back surgery, her current injuries would limit her ability to wear her full protective gear. She deployed to Iraq last week, the day after calling Salon.

Her husband, who has served three combat tours in the infantry in Afghanistan and Iraq, said he is worried sick because his wife's protective vest alone exceeds the maximum amount she is allowed to lift. "I have been over there three times. I know what it is like," he told me during lunch at a restaurant here. He predicted that by deploying people like his wife, the brigade leaders are "going to get somebody killed over there." He said there is "no way" Grigsby is going to keep all of the injured soldiers in safe jobs. "All of these people that deploy with these profiles, they are scared," he said. He railed at the command: "They are saying they don't care about your health. This is pathetic. It is bad."

His wife's physical profile was among those reevaluated on Feb. 15. A copy of her profile from late last year showed her health problems were so severe they "prevent deployment" and recommended she be medically retired from the Army. Her profile at that time showed she was unable to wear a protective mask and chemical defense equipment, and had limitations on doing pushups, walking, biking and swimming. It said she can only carry 15 pounds.


Though she says that her condition has not changed since then, almost all of those findings were reversed in a copy of her physical profile dated Feb. 15. The new profile says nothing about a medical retirement, but suggests that she limit wearing a helmet to "one hour at a time."

Other soldiers slated to leave for Iraq with injuries said they wonder whether the same thing is happening in other units in the Army. "You have to ask where else this might be happening and who is dictating it," one female soldier told me. "How high does it go?"  

quote:

ORIGINAL: MzMia

if we can't send the troops to get the job DONE, why not just leave?

quote:

One of the guys I know over there, who is an armored battalion commander, has an ACL problem they found when he was here for Thanksgiving. They originally told him they were going to fix it, but his superior officer decided they couldn't spare him and sent him back after his three week leave. He hasn't said a word about it since. I guess he is just toughing it out.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MzMia

I am not surprised, we have never had enough troops for years.
They would rather send the injured, the battle weary and senior citizens,
rather than institute a draft. We have NEVER had enough troops over there,
if we can't send the troops to get the job DONE, why not just leave?

Generals: More troops needed in Iraq - Los Angeles Times

quote:

ORIGINAL: MzMia

I am not surprised, we have never had enough troops for years.
They would rather send the injured, the battle weary and senior citizens,
rather than institute a draft. We have NEVER had enough troops over there,
if we can't send the troops to get the job DONE, why not just leave?

Generals: More troops needed in Iraq - Los Angeles Times

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy

quote:

ORIGINAL: MzMia

if we can't send the troops to get the job DONE, why not just leave?

I go this one step further, MzMia.  If we cant send enough troops to get the job done, why the fuck are we
there in the first place?

When I say this, the response I generally get is I am not supporting our troops.

Sinergy

I totally agree Sinergy, and I protested this "war" BEFORE we went over there. I protested
in that big march on the White House in January, before we began bombing the place in April.
 
That said, we only have so many choices at this point----get more troops and fight HARDER,
or just get the hell out of there.
I mean what other choices are there? We are not exactly in a great position over there, now are we?

quote:

ORIGINAL: FangsNfeet

quote:

ORIGINAL: MzMia

I am not surprised, we have never had enough troops for years.
They would rather send the injured, the battle weary and senior citizens,
rather than institute a draft. We have NEVER had enough troops over there,
if we can't send the troops to get the job DONE, why not just leave?

Generals: More troops needed in Iraq - Los Angeles Times

I question as to why we sent troops in the first place when it only takes one nuke. One nuke, or maybe two at the most, will get the job done. Nukes would have taken Saddam out of power, kill most of the terrorist, and prevent a new age of terrorist from forming much like Bin Laden and Al Queda did when the USA left Afghanistan. One Nuke versus 150,000 troops. Which one will do the job right and quickly? 

quote:

ORIGINAL: MzMia

I am somewhat at a loss here, as someone who protested BEFORE we went over
there and has never really understood WHY we are over there, I am at a crossroads.
But in life, there comes a time where you either have to fight hard go all out, or leave.
What we are doing now is not productive nor are we moving forward in whatever "reason"
we are over there.  We have destroyed that country, people are fleeing by the millions
and I question who the hell is even going to remain in that country?

quote:

before he admits he fucked up on a global scale

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

quote:

before he admits he fucked up on a global scale

I'm guessing he dies before he admits.