Hidden Costs...

And I'm not talking about money. The "official" death toll in the War on Terror is 3063 soldiers in Iraq (March 19, 2003 - January 26, 2007) and 353 soldiers in Afghanistan (October 7, 2001 - January 26, 2007). These numbers include only service people, not contractors, and are being touted as "small" - even thought this number exceeds the 2973 killed on 9/11, as reported by CNN. What these numbers fails to include, however, are the "hidden casualties" (my term) that go unreported in the official statistics. In this documentation, released by the National Security Archive, the US Department of Veterans Affairs details the number of disability benefits claims filed by veterans from the current war in Iraq. This documentation was only released after the NSA threatened to sue under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA); until the threat, the VA denied that such documents existed. Upon review of the released information, it became apparent that, of the 560,000+ veterans of the Global War on Terrorism, more than 150,000 deployed in Operation Enduring Freedom (Afghanistan) and in Operation Iraqi Freedom (Iraq) filed disability compensation and pension benefits claims with the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA). 2 reports on the subject can be found here (January, 2006 - 464,144 veterans deployed) and here (July, 2006 - 566,901 veterans deployed). This July report shows that of 118,000+ claims currently processed, 89% were approved - this debunks the possible explanation that the claims are largely frivolous. Before analyzing the information and addressing the inevitable questions that will arise - "What does 10% Total Disability mean? how bad is that?", I want to first address the obvious fact that these injuries, while not fatal, have a significant effect on the veteran's life, outlook, and morale. As such, it also affects the people around the veteran - his family, friends, the community, and the entire country see the side effects of the war indelibly etched on the body and psyche of the veteran. These are not things that can be easily measured, but I believe that they play an important role in understanding the moral cost of military action. While politicians trumpet the "success" of the war and the low loss of life, they neglect these other statistics - statistics which contribute at least as much, if not more, to the esoteric "cost" of the war and the lasting effect the war has on a nation. With that, I will analyze the documents. The complicated part of the July report is the Combined Degree of Disability chart. This is determined through a ridiculously extensive set of rules detailed in the Department of Veterans Affairs Veterans Relief: Part 4 - Schedule for Rating Disabilities. This rating system seems to have very few concrete rules, but a good place to ground the analysis is this quote: "The following will be considered to be permanent total disability: the permanent loss of the use of both hands, or of both feet, or of one hand and one foot, or of the sight of both eyes, or becoming permanently helpless or permanently bedridden." This correlates to 100% on the Combined Degree chart - thus, 1520 soldiers, while not technically "causalities', have suffered permanent and complete disability, reducing their ability to support themselves and their families to zero. The 17980 0% ratings seem a bit troubling at first, until one reads the definition of a zero rating: "In every instance where the schedule does not provide a zero percent evaluation for a diagnostic code, a zero percent evaluation shall be assigned when the requirements for a compensable evaluation are not met." This does not necessarily imply that there is no problem, only that the requirements for an appropriate diagnosis are not met. This system also encompasses non-physical damage, or "mental disorders" - the description of the rating system is here. This is a touchy subject, which is poorly addressed in Sec. 4.13 - Effect of change of diagnosis" "The repercussion upon a current rating of service connection when change is made of a previously assigned diagnosis or etiology must be kept in mind. The aim should be the reconciliation and continuance of the diagnosis or etiology upon which service connection for the disability had been granted. The relevant principle enunciated in Sec. 4.125, entitled ``Diagnosis of mental disorders,'' should have careful attention in this connection. When any change in evaluation is to be made, the rating agency should assure itself that there has been an actual change in the conditions, for better or worse, and not merely a difference in thoroughness of the examination or in use of descriptive terms. This will not, of course, preclude the correction of erroneous ratings, nor will it preclude assignment of a rating in conformity with Sec. 4.7." So, mental effects can be re-classified through re-examination at a later date; meanwhile, the veteran is left to endure his situation as best he can. All of these complicated procedures obscure the true issue - whether a 20% or 40% Combined Degree of Disability, the fact is that the life of that soldier, and the life of anyone he comes in contact with, is irreparably changed. All of the 118,000+ veterans that have been granted disability claims, and all of the ones who will follow, have been horribly abused in fighting a war that was initiated under false pretenses, and continues to be fought for motives that place the good of the nation behind other, less virtuous objectives. Our soldiers bear that price for the rest of their lives.