Stark Industries Halts Production of Super Soldiers
CEO Tony Stark Reported M.I.A after Missing Military's Quota for more "Fighting Machines."
If you had to "hump a rucksack" one too many times you'd be unfit for duty too. Huh? Before you think I'm saying something unfitting this blog, let me define my terms. I certainly need to, because USA Today didn't in yesterday's front-page story about repeated deployments directly contributing to the recent sharp rise in the percentage of soldiers who are unfit for duty.
It's an interesting article and one everyone should read because it illustrates what I've said so many times: soldiers who keep getting re-deployed are not "Iron Men." Translated into cinematic terms, that means they don't have the advantage of being neatly reassembled on a multi-billion dollar Stark Industries' "roboman" assembly line. If that were the case, then they'd all be well-oiled Super Soldiers––mighty men of steel who could take the hits and keep on coming.
Think about it. Although precise numbers are not available, between the years 2006 and 2008, bad backs, strained knees and other battle-related ailments increased from 1.4 million cases in the overall military to 1.9 million. In other words, it's pretty hard to "drop and do 20" ( I can do exactly two before I fall on my face) when your knees and/or back haven't fully healed from the wounds you just received during the last deployment.
And speaking of healing, what about mental health disorders, including PTSD? Those increased even more...a staggering 67% from 657, 144 cases to 1.1 million! This is an even worse reality because we all know by now the challenges in getting those kinds of wounds "healed up." They take a significantly longer time to "fix" because (a) soldiers can't–or won't–talk about their emotional angst; (b) if they do, they're simply told to "Buck Up Buttercup" by their battle buddies and (c) the VA resources they need to help them are in limited supply. Even if they do manage to get seen by the VA, soldiers live in fear that they will be labeled as "trouble."
It doesn't take a military genius to know that longer recuperation times between deployments would help soldiers completely recover. 28 months to recover vs. 12 months recovery (at the war's peak) time would make a huge difference in both the amount and the quality of fighting men fully available––both physically and mentally––for combat. I think we should also keep in mind that those 12 months spent in so-called "recovery" are partially used up in more military training. This means that the actual down time spent recuperating from their injuries and being with their families (an important component in the recovery process) is about 9 months or often less.
Hopefully the drawdown in Iraq, coupled with the slated increase in troops from 500,000 to 570,000 next year will help with the redeployment problem. At least that's what George Casey, the Army chief of staff purports will happen.
Now about that "hump a rucksack.". According to our resident military expert, John Wooten, a former soldier himself, a "hump" is a hike and a "rucksack"–well, most of us know what that is: a knapsack carried by outdoor types, i.e. hikers. I guess "rucksack" sounds more manly-manish than "knapsack" which makes one envision little Johnny going off to his first day of kindergarten.
On Monday, I'll talk more about the effect of repeated deployments on a soldier's mental and emotional health. Watch for that entry.
Read more about it: Army Sees Sharp Rise in Unfit Soldiers, USA Today.
Blogged by: jenni keast
No comments:
Post a Comment