Agency Says Higher Casualty Total Was Posted in Error

For the last few months, anyone who consulted the Veterans Affairs Department’s Web site to learn how many American troops had been wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan would have found this number: 50,508.

But on Jan. 10, without explanation, the figure plummeted to 21,649.

Which number is correct? The answer depends on a larger question, the definition of wounded. If the term includes combat or “hostile” injuries inflicted by the enemy, the definition the Pentagon uses, the smaller number would be right.

But if it also applies to injuries from accidents like vehicle crashes and to mental and physical illnesses that developed in the war zone, the meaning that veterans’ groups favor, 50,508 would be accurate.

How odd that there are two different figures; apparently “injured” has to be kept separate from “wounded” for some arcane bureaucratic or political reason. Perhaps Bu$hCo feels that "injured" are not entitled to the same disgraceful level of non-care that "wounded" are insulted with?

The 50,508 figure caught the attention of the Pentagon when Prof. Linda Bilmes of Harvard mentioned it in an opinion article on Jan. 5 in The Los Angeles Times. A few days later, said Professor Bilmes, who teaches public finance, she had a call from Dr. William Winkenwerder Jr., assistant secretary of defense for health affairs, challenging the number.

Professor Bilmes explained that she had used the government tally, the one on the “America’s Wars” page of the veterans’ department Web site. She faxed him a copy.

A few days later, the number on the Web site was changed.

A spokeswoman for Dr. Winkenwerder confirmed that he had called the veterans’ department to have the figure corrected and that the worker had misunderstood the Defense Department figures.

For her purposes, Professor Bilmes said, the higher figure was the relevant one because she was writing about the future demands that wounded veterans would place on the veterans’ health care system. Many of the veterans would be treated in the system regardless of whether they had been injured in combat or in vehicle crashes.

It may be a moot question, since the Bu$h malAdministration seems determined to starve the VA of funds to care for the nation’s veterans, even as it avidly seeks to create even more vets. It should also be noted that the “America’s Wars page Professor Bilmes used as a reference has been scribbed. There is no longer any mention of casualties related to Mr Bu$h’s ego-war in Iraq.