Walter Reed, Building 18

[GMCM Bill Wells (Ret)]

Knowing this is not a Coast Guard specfic topic it does have relevance in the leadership arena.

Over the last few days there has been much news about the "barracks" at Walter Reed in which wounded troops are being housed. The news has reported mold, insect and rodent infestation as well as other problems encountered by wheelchair and other bound patients.

The Army Chief of Staff was on TV saying they knew nothing of it about, in essence, heads will roll.

My thoughts on the topic included where were the top enlisted folks. Where was the command, battalion and so on SGT. Majors. Where were the First Sgts., the SFCs, heck even the staff sgts. To me, this is akin to the situtation at the prison in Iraq. Ever notice not senior enlisted were brought forward?

If the E-9s and E-8s are supposed to be the ones with access to the flags then were where they? I'm sure there will be some non-medical officers finding themselves in hot water over this one, but what about the senior enlisted. They should have been in the forefront for correcting this problem much earlier. Why did it take a four-month investigation by the Washington Post to bring it to light?

[AMTCM John Long]

I've been over to WR as recently as last week. Can't speak for Bldg/Ward 18 as I didn't see it. From what I seen in the main facility, I was pretty impressed. I suspect there is more to the story that what the Wash Post is reporting. If it's as big as "reported", I hope it gets fixed quickly. We'll see.....

I was there all day last week. Seen quite a few wounded soldiers in different phases of recovery out and about. Realities of war. :(

[GMCM Bill Wells (Ret)]

I was there twice. Once to have a nose job and the second for my retirement physical.

It is a class place.

[PACS Steve Carleton]

When I was assigned to the DC area, I went to WR -- the in patient facilities were outstanding, the service was professional.

Somewhere there was a major breakdown in the out-patient long-term recovery of these soldiers.

I heard a statistic on an NPR story that this war is the forst in history with a 7:1 ration of wounded to dead. (200,000 injured to just over 3,000 dead)

While the miracles of modern medicine are truly saving the lives of these men and women, in some cases landing stateside within 48 hours of initial injury. We are placing a significant strain on the long-term health care and recovery of these men and women. Is the VA going to be able to handle all of these cases?

Bill posted the question of where was the E7-9s? Why were they not looking out for the soldiers under them?

After reading all of the Wash Post articles, those people were also injured and just as frustrated with the lack of paperwork, service. They were they ones who were put in charge of these musters and formations and stopped caring because nobody cared about them, it appears to have snowballed.

The problems with bldg 18 and the loss of paperwork for these soldiers is incomprehensible, I don't blame the generals, I blame that callous overworked paper pusher who because of the large number of cases they were processing lost the ability to care.

[ETC Joe Jester ret]

I heard a statistic on an NPR story that this war is the forst in history with a 7:1 ration of wounded to dead. (200,000 injured to just over 3,000 dead)

I'm sure you meant the "worst".

Let's see, if there's alot of dead ... complain about the dead. Improve the odds of survival ... then one can complain about the wounded. What's next on NPR's agenda? I know, overspending by the military.

[MSTCS Jerald P. Motyka]

Actually, Joe, he meant, "first", as in, "First time in history that we have had a wounded to dead ratio that high." I heard the same story. Out of a lot of the left-leaning stuff on NPR, I thought that story was pretty well balanced.

They were pointing out that we have very few people dying - and lots more wounded - so perhaps that was why Walter Reed and the VA were overwhelmed... they just didn't plan on/expect this many people to fix. They figured more would have come home in bags than on stretchers.

Horrible Catch-22 if you ask me. We have better body armor so fewer people die, but that means that the damage is concentrated on stuff like heads and arms and legs that cease to work properly. On one hand, they could be dead - but on the other, they have no legs and are permanently deaf... which is worse?

[ETC Joe Jester ret]

It is a horrible Catch-22.

I just get upset at "statistics" like that.

[GMCM Bill Wells (Ret)]

The point remains that those people, such as the Command Sargeant Major, should have been aware and acted. I've known several of these people over the years and when they speak the stars usually listen.

[MSTC SJ Natale]

I heard a statistic on an NPR story that this war is the forst in history with a 7:1 ration of wounded to dead. (200,000 injured to just over 3,000 dead)
.

Isnt the ratio actually like 70:1? (200,000 : 3000 = 66.66 : 1)If so that is truely amazing. It can be seen in both a positive or negative way.

Positive- Only one out of evey 70 wounded ends up dying.

Negative- For each person KIA there are 70 wounded.

Either way, each person lost is one too many. I just hope we can get things to the point where our personnel are out of there.

[PACS Steve Carleton]

My math is probably off -- it's why I'm a PA -- I am looking for a trnscript of the broadcast to verify the numbers. Of all the parts of the report that really got my attention.

[PACS Steve Carleton]

From All Things Considered Feb. 23:

Medical care for wounded troops is a recurring theme in the president's speeches – and for good reason. The Iraq war has the distinction of having the highest wounded-to-dead ratio of any war in history. More than 40,000 troops have been wounded there.

[AMTCM John Long]

From All Things Considered Feb. 23:

Medical care for wounded troops is a recurring theme in the president's speeches – and for good reason. The Iraq war has the distinction of having the highest wounded-to-dead ratio of any war in history. More than 40,000 troops have been wounded there.

Is that coalition troops or US troops? I would also be curious what level of injury meets the threshold of a "wound". For example, does a powder burn equal a wound, how about ducking for cover and jamming a finger, vehicle mishap, etc.

It would be nice to see all the info, not just part of it.

John

[MKCM Brett Ayer]

Is that coalition troops or US troops? I would also be curious what level of injury meets the threshold of a "wound". For example, does a powder burn equal a wound, how about ducking for cover and jamming a finger, vehicle mishap, etc.

It would be nice to see all the info, not just part of it.

John

I can't say where NPR gets their data but:

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/casualty.pdf and http://siadapp.dior.whs.mil/personnel/CASUALTY/OIF-Total.pdf

[AMTCM John Long]

Thanks Brett. Those numbers appear to be a little more like I expected. The 40K might be all coalition or could be BS.

John

[GMCM Bill Wells (Ret)]

Why do the Navy totals include the Coast Guard?

[MKCM Brett Ayer]

Why do the Navy totals include the Coast Guard?

Your guess is as good as mine. If I had to guess, it may because it was easier than redoing the standard DOD spreadsheet for only a few people. Far easier to add an asterisk at the bottom.

Be Safe,

Brett

[GMCM Bill Wells (Ret)]

"Far easier to add an asterisk at the bottom."

Gotta be careful with those asteiski. They have a way of discounting folks.

An example is the 1968 USMAV instructions about awards. The Coast Guard got an asterisk there too. It meant all Coast Guard awards went through the navy.

[PACS Steve Carleton]

Just a guess on my part, but maybe due to being attached to a Navy ship at the time.

[MKCM Brett Ayer]

Just a guess on my part, but maybe due to being attached to a Navy ship at the time.

Keep in mind, while the only combat casualities were assigned to a Navy PC, we have had several non combat casualities (non Death).

Non combat casualities are counted in DOD numbers. So I would expect that the Coast Guard non combat casualities are also listed.

If you have access to the E-Mishap system you can look them up.

Brett

[GMCM Bill Wells (Ret)]

Just a guess on my part, but maybe due to being attached to a Navy ship at the time.

Steve, this is one of the problems with the Coast Guard. It always assumes its people are part of the navy whenever they operate together. It is one of the cultural assumption I have been trying to eradicate for decades.

You can bet the marines sent off navy ships are not counted in the navy totals.

[RDCS Jack Hawkins (Ret)]

This Just In.


Walter Reed General Loses His Command

Mar 01 2:01 PM US/Eastern





WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Army said Thursday that the two-star general in charge of Walter Reed Army Medical Center has been relieved of command following disclosures about inadequate treatment of wounded soldiers.

Maj. Gen. George W. Weightman, who was commanding general of the North Atlantic Regional Medical Command as well as Walter Reed hospital, was relieved of command by Army Secretary Francis J. Harvey.

In a brief announcement, the Army said service leaders had "lost trust and confidence" in Weightman's leadership abilities "to address needed solutions for soldier outpatient care" at Walter Reed.

Jack

[GMCM Bill Wells (Ret)]

Thanks Jack.

I wonder if any of the top enlisted went with him. Seems to me they were the ones with the responsiblity to speak up. Maybe they did, but did not use the "network" if nothing was done.

[AMTCM John Long]

I was listening to the news on the local radio (Wash DC) a little bit ago. One of the stories claimed that some of the soldiers who talked were disciplned for speaking out. Others were threatened not to talk to anyone. I didn't catch if it was patients or the workers of this particular area or WR. If true, that would very disturbing and another horrible black eye for the Army. They sure don't need that right now.

I checked the Army Forums and it looks like they're being tight lipped over there. I only seen one WR post on the main page. Only 8 views on it since it came out this afternoon. Below is a story that I copy/pasted from the Army WR thread.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070301/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/w...0AiI4_rvp80lL.OWwvIE

Walter Reed general loses his command
By ROBERT BURNS, AP Military Writer

The Army said Thursday that the two-star general in charge of Walter Reed Army Medical Center has been relieved of command following disclosures about inadequate treatment of wounded soldiers.

The firing of Maj. Gen. George W. Weightman, who was commanding general of the North Atlantic Regional Medical Command as well as Walter Reed hospital, was announced by Army Secretary Francis J. Harvey.

In a brief announcement, the Army said service leaders had "lost trust and confidence" in Weightman's leadership abilities "to address needed solutions for soldier outpatient care." He had headed Walter Reed since Aug. 25, 2006.

The Army and the Defense Department launched a series of investigations after The Washington Post published a series of stories last week that documented problems in soldiers' housing and in the medical bureaucracy at Walter Reed, which has been called the Army's premier caregiver for soldiers wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan.

After a visit to the hospital compound last Friday, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said those found to have been responsible for the problems at Walter Reed would be "held accountable."

On Thursday he issued a brief statement endorsing Harvey's action.

"The care and welfare of our wounded men and women in uniform demand the highest standard of excellence and commitment that we can muster as a government," Gates said. "When this standard is not met, I will insist on swift and direct corrective action and, where appropriate, accountability up the chain of command."

It was not clear whether Gates insisted on Weightman's firing. A Pentagon official, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue, said Gates was "actively involved" in the firing decision.

A Pentagon spokesman, Bryan Whitman, said before Weightman's firing was announced that an outside review panel created by Gates was holding its first meeting Friday at the Pentagon. Headed by two former Army secretaries, Togo West and Jack Marsh, the panel is to review treatment and administrative processes at Walter Reed and at the National Naval Medical Center at Bethesda, Md. Gates has instructed the group to report its findings publicly within 45 days.

Being relieved of command means Weightman is almost certain to have lost his future in the Army.

A native of Vermont, he graduated from West Point in 1973 and got his medical degree from the University of Vermont. He later served as the surgeon for the 82nd Airborne Division, including during Desert Storm.

He has held a number of medical commands, including service as a leading surgeon during the initial stages of the Iraq war.

Weightman's duties at Walter Reed will be assumed temporarily by Lt. Gen. Kevin Kiley, the commander of U.S. Medical Command, until a permanent replacement is found, Harvey said.

"The Army is moving quickly to address issues regarding outpatient care at Walter Reed Army Medical Center," the announcement said.

Last week the Army took disciplinary action against several lower-level soldiers at Walter Reed, but officials have declined to publicly confirm any details of those actions.

The problems at Walter Reed pertain not to the quality of medical treatment for wounded soldiers but rather to the level of care for those who are well enough to be outpatients, living in Army housing at Walter Reed. One building was singled out in the Post reports as suffering from ill-repair, including mold on interior walls.

The Army also has acknowledged problems with the system it uses to evaluate wounded soldiers in determining whether they are well enough to return to active duty.

At a breakfast meeting with reporters Thursday, in which he refused to discuss any aspect of the Walter Reed investigations, Harvey said the Army also was reviewing conditions at its medical centers elsewhere in the country. He would not be more specific.

[BMC John Phillips III]

Is that coalition troops or US troops? I would also be curious what level of injury meets the threshold of a "wound". For example, does a powder burn equal a wound, how about ducking for cover and jamming a finger, vehicle mishap, etc.
Statistics can be just as misleading as the people that use them. I remember reading a breakdown somewhere of how the deaths occured and you would be surprised at the number that have occured in non-combat situations. You know like car accidents and such.

I realize deaths are deaths. Anyway, I would say the highest injury to death ratio has a lot to do with protective gear, first aid and advances in medical treatment. I will take more injuries over deaths any day. Some people will never be happy.


Steve, this is one of the problems with the Coast Guard. It always assumes its people are part of the navy whenever they operate together. It is one of the cultural assumption I have been trying to eradicate for decades.

You can bet the marines sent off navy ships are not counted in the navy totals.

"The act of 2 March 1799, provided that the cutters "shall, whenever the President of the United States shall so direct, cooperate with the Navy of the United States, during which time they shall be under the direction of the Secretary of the Navy…" and "During times of war or at the direction of the President, the USCG functionally transfers to the Department of Defense under the Secretary of the Navy."

Am I missing something?

[GMCM Bill Wells (Ret)]

"The act of 2 March 1799, provided that the cutters "shall, whenever the President of the United States shall so direct, cooperate with the Navy of the United States, during which time they shall be under the direction of the Secretary of the Navy…" and "During times of war or at the direction of the President, the USCG functionally transfers to the Department of Defense under the Secretary of the Navy."

Am I missing something?

Yep, you missed two very large things. 1) There is no declared war and hasn't been since 1941. 2) The president has not directed the Coast Guard to become a "specicalized service in the Navy."

The navy make ask for and the Coast Guard may send people to assist whenever needed, however, this does not mean the Coast Guard is under the authority Secretary of the Navy. In the conflicts in which the Coast Guard and Navy have cooperated since WWII, they have been as independent services. The Navy may have OPCON, with USCG approval, but it does not have ADCON.

I would have thought that this would have been covered at the CPOA. We used to have to know all manner of things such as this. I recalled the Status of Forces Agreement was a SWE regular.

I will take more injuries over deaths any day. Some people will never be happy.

I will take an end to this useless and unnecessary conflict in Iraq -- that would make me very happy.

[MKC Craig Thorngren (Ret)]

[QUOTE=GMCM Bill Wells (Ret)
I will take an end to this useless and unnecessary conflict in Iraq -- that would make me very happy.[/QUOTE]

Useless and unnecessary?? How so? Should we also abandon Afghanistan, Somalia and the Phillipines like we did to Vietnam? If we don't finish what others have started it's only going to embolden them to try bigger and worse plans... Maybe I have a different perspective on it because most of my news comes from AFN/AFRTS where, yes they do report on deaths and injuries, but they also show the good things that are happening in those countries. It's not all doom and gloom like most broadcast networks portray in an attempt to sway public opinion or to achieve some political agenda.

I too would like an end to the conflict in Iraq, but not at the expense of abandoning an ally and embolding those who want to kill you, me, our kids and our way of life.

Craig

[BMC John Phillips III]

The Navy may have OPCON, with USCG approval, but it does not have ADCON.

I would have thought that this would have been covered at the CPOA. We used to have to know all manner of things such as this. I recalled the Status of Forces Agreement was a SWE regular.

I will take an end to this useless and unnecessary conflict in Iraq -- that would make me very happy.

It's common sense that while the CG as a whole is not under the control of the Navy, that CG unit's who are under the OPCON of the Navy would be statistically counted as Navy/Coast Guard.

As far as your "I would have thought that this.....blah blah ...CPOA...blah blah." Maybe you should have gone to the CPOA so that you could become a more active listener, they have a class on that. Now don't take that literally, but reread this sentence, ""The act of 2 March 1799, provided that the cutters "shall, whenever the President of the United States shall so direct, cooperate with the Navy of the United States, during which time they shall be under the direction of the Secretary of the Navy…" and tell me where I said that the entire Coast Guard was operating under the direction or ADCON of the NAVY.

Perhaps my "am I missing something" comment was a bit off key, but I though the rest was pretty self explanatory. No need to attack the CPO Academy again.

Oh and as far as declaring war and being at war, I guess we can crown you the king of semantics.

[GMCM Bill Wells (Ret)]

It's common sense that while the CG as a whole is not under the control of the Navy, that CG unit's who are under the OPCON of the Navy would be statistically counted as Navy/Coast Guard.

Since when does being under the navy OPCON call for the Coast Guard to fall into navy statistics? Even in Vietnam the Coast Guard was separated out. If included the navy would have had to include the CG in the credit. I sent out dozens of "spot" reports as well as chop messages.

Now don't take that literally, but reread this sentence, ""The act of 2 March 1799, provided that the cutters "shall, whenever the President of the United States shall so direct, cooperate with the Navy of the United States, during which time they shall be under the direction of the Secretary of the Navy…"

I hate to break your bubble, but this is an obsolete law. Check the Statutes at Large. It has been replaced. You are probably not aware of the 1794 act that allowed the President to direct the cutters as dispatch vessels. This means the president may direct cutters, or anyother part of the Coast Guard to go where he wants with or without the navy. This, too, is an obsolete law but it was used as a precedent to help justify the invasion of Haiti.

You'll have to show where the president has directed the Coast Guard to be "a specialized service in the navy," since 1941. Most people miss this part. The Coast Guard, even if transfered to the Navy Department, would be a separate service on par with the Marine Corps and like the USMC reports to the CNO. The navy even has an instruction about this.

and tell me where I said that the entire Coast Guard was operating under the direction or ADCON of the NAVY.

Would not "operating under" be OPCON?

No need to attack the CPO Academy again.

Oh and as far as declaring war and being at war, I guess we can crown you the king of semantics.

There is a large difference between a declared war and "being at war." The former is a formal war that has followed the procedures of international law. The latter is a "conflict" that has not followed international law. No semantics here.

I was not attacking the CPOA. I see that some things have been left out.

You do know about the Status of Forces agreements, don't you? If not, Google it.