Broke soldiers

I spent five years in the U.S. Army.  When a soldier was injured and had to be put on a medical profile, which meant that his physical capabilities had to be limited until he recovered, he was often referred to as “broke.” 

I remember a drill sergeant at Ft. Leonard Wood who was particularly nasty towards soldiers with profiles.  She was a reserve drill sergeant who only served one weekend a month and two weeks during the summer.  It was in those two weeks we caught her.  She liked to take all the soldiers with profiles, read their limitations, and look for loopholes.  If she found one, she’d smoke them, which is the term we’d use to describe punishing a soldier through strenuous physical activity (though it was never called “punishment”), like push-ups, flutter kicks, iron mikes, and any other thing you can think of. 

As they were struggling to follow her orders, she’d scream at them that she hated “broke soldiers.”  She said she knew that most of them were faking or exaggerating their injuries in order to get out of the most physically strenuous activities but she wasn’t fooled.  Her attitude was that these soldiers just needed to be tougher and needed to know she wasn’t playing around.  They’d get back in line with the others. 

This is the attitude, I think, reflected in General Tucker’s changes at Walter Reed Army Medical Hospital detailed in this article in the WaPo. 

I was stationed at WRAMC for about three months and was assigned to the Med Hold Company.  My medical issue was an illness and fortunately I was able to return to duty after my time there.  But since I was a Non-Commissioned Officer, I was made a squad leader and had a lot of duties, on top of my medical treatment, that entailed looking after some of the other soldiers. 

So it pains me to read this article as I sympathize completely with the soldiers who are hurt and upset about the tone deaf response of the installation commander.  There are many wonderful, intelligent commanders and NCO’s in the Army.  Indeed, some of the most dedicated, professional, and wonderful people I have ever met were soldiers. 

But there’s a mentality pretty common in the service, an ignorance which is reflected here, that whatever another person’s problem, if he were just a little tougher, we’d all make out like champs.  So you’ve got substandard medical conditions, soldiers with terrible life-long injuries being neglected, soldiers with emotional and psychological trauma, and soldiers who feel diminished, ignored, and undervalued.  What do you do? 

Call the drill sergeants, tankers, and combat veterans who can remind them what real pain and real problems look like! 

Seriously? 

Bush on Health Care…

… in his speech today – “People have access to health care in this country.  After all, just go to an emergency room.” 

Tell that to Edith Isabel Rodriguez.  Oh, wait.  She’s dead. 

On fire

When Digby’s on fire, the only thing a sane blogger should do is get out of the way.  And link to this and this. 

Sicko

I saw Michael Moore’s new movie yesterday.  This one promises to be less controversial, more popular among both the usual supporters and detractors of the man, and affect the national consciousness more profoundly.  It’s about health care and it is difficult to understate the power of an idea whose time has come in this country. 

My take on the zeitgeist is that it is now no longer a question of if we will have a nationally subsidized health care system with universal coverage.  It’s a question of how. 

Another thing I want to say about Michael Moore.  The guy is a lightning rod and very often his simple points and less than radical points of view are lost in the shouting match that marks any debate on his works. 

One of the things that surprises a lot of people when I talk to them about Farenheit 9/11 is when I tell them how popular that movie was among soldiers.  I was serving in the Army when it came out and, except for a very vocal and shrill minority (many of whom never bothered to see the movie), many soldiers loved it and went to see it more than once.  I don’t know the statistics.  I just know from personal experience. 

After giving his acceptance speech for the Academy Award for Best Documentary for Bowling for Columbine, Michael Moore was roundly criticized for saying that we went to war in Iraq under false pretenses.  It doesn’t seem so radical to say that now, does it? 

But Michael Moore has always been a controversial figure.  I met him in Ann Arbor back in the mid-90s when the paperback version of his book, Downsize This! – Random Threats from an Unarmed American, came out.  It was at the screening of his follow-up to Roger and Me, the now relatively unknown documentary called The Big One.  My personal impression was that he was somewhat uncomfortable being in the spotlight and his voice took on an even more grating high-pitched quality when giving speeches or appearing on television. 

But his work speaks to people.  I know because of the crowds of people who showed up to hear him speak.  He was not well known by the college kids yet (not like today) and the auditorium was packed with folks who were middle-aged and older, folks who maybe remembered what southeastern Michigan used to look like when the Big Three businesses was booming. 

And it was out of that memory and the pain of losing proud cities like Flint to modernization, unemployment, degraded school systems, crime, and corporate irresponsibility that Moore’s first movie was born.  Moore is a native of Flint and certainly the stories of the glory days, from his relatives, many of them proud members of the local union and community, made the pain of Flint’s destruction personal. 

Roger and Me was like a bolt of lightning into the conscience of America.  The entire movie is the pursuit of the answer to simple questions.  Why did this happen to Flint?  What did we do wrong? 

Bowling for Columbine had as its genesis a similar theme.  Why are our kids shooting each other?  What are we doing wrong? 

Farenheit 9/11:  Why are we in this war?  How did we get here? 

And Sicko?  Why are we not taking care of our sick and dying?  How did we get here? 

Moore shoots his movies as if he is in the pursuit of answers to important questions.  They unfold as if he does not already know the answers.  In some respects, I believe that really is true.  Contrary to what some people think, I do not think Moore’s finished product is a prisoner to his preconceived notions.  Some times he just lets the camera run and what follows are often the most brilliant and controversial moments. 

At any rate, I loved this movie and feel it will prove to be an important one.  Anyone who walks out of it believing we get the health care system we deserve is either deluded or getting paid to think that way.