The traditional thought in previous wars has been that it is more advantageous to “our” side to injure, rather than kill, the enemy. This is because it takes up a lot more medical resources from the other side to take care of their wounded soldiers than their dead soldiers. That’s the reason that full metal jacket bullets are the standard, rather than bullets that fragment. Bullets that stay intact will cause localized damage and only kill if they hit a vital target. Fragmenting bullets cause significant tissue damage and are much more likely to kill. Also, the Hague Convention specifically prohibits fragmenting bullets. And bullets that explode if they are aimed at a person. Speaking of Conventions, the Geneva Conventions prohibit tear gas in war, but allows Napalm. I don't really profess to understand that one.
In contrast to most of history, the US has taken on responsibility for caring for the wounded that are caused by us. So our hospital is mostly full of Afghans. We care for US and coalition forces, civilians injured due to US or coalition action, plus Afghan National Army (ANA) and Police (ANP) that are injured. We also take care of any enemy that are injured on the battle field. The unit that injures them collects them after the battle and puts them into the US medical system. They are required to supply a guard and then we take care of them in our hospital. Also, we take care of all the medical needs of the prison detainees (the DFIP- Detainee Facility in Parwan; that’s the province we are in- this is the Guantanamo Bay equivalent right here on Bagram). There is a full complement of medical specialists at the prison to care for any need they might have. If they need surgery, even most elective surgeries, we provide it. Those guys come with two guards from the prison.
Our prisoners get top care. They get the same exact compassionate care that any American or coalition forces would get. If the enemy is more injured than an American, he gets treated first. They get state of the art orthopedic and plastic surgery. They get reconstructive surgery. They get fed and cared for. This can be pretty stressful on our nurses and technicians because sometimes these patients are not as grateful for their care as the Americans are. We go into care-giving because it feels good. When people are spitting at us or trying to resist care, it's hard to feel good. But our medics are heroes and even when they feel in their hearts that they don't care, they act like they do.
Bottom line, is…if we only injure them, it causes a drain on our resources, not the enemy’s. What a change in the way we prosecute a war! That’s not to say it’s any better or any worse. It just is. I understand the benefit of keeping these prisoners for interrogation purposes. Plus, we are living in an age where ethics are a bit different than they used to be. There are a lot of politics involved in our current situation. It’s not my place to pass judgment on the reason WHY we have changed how we operate. I just thought it was an interesting turn of events.
2 comments:
How incredibly interesting. We all will be happy when you return to your family in the States, but I sure will miss these insightful reports from the war. Too bad CNN and Fox don't talk to the people who are actually there.
Thank you for sharing.
Yeah, too bad they can't tell the full story. We had Barbara Starr through here...she made some pretty rude comments. Asked one member if if she was Active Duty. When the member said yes, she said said "Oh good. You're Real Air Force." As opposed to our Guard and Reserve colleagues who leave families and other jobs to come here. She also wanted to make sure she saw the "real" war wounded. Unfortunately, we had difficulty finding patients who wanted to talk to her. They are not really interested in having their stories twisted to suit the media.
Post a Comment