Warrior Transition units: We must do better
The Army's treatment of more than 9,300 wounded soldiers in its 38 Warrior Transition units -- and its attitude toward solving those units' manifest problems -- are a disgrace.
Warrior Transition units, set up for soldiers wounded during repeated deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan, are bedeviled by a lack of psychological care and overreliance on medication for post-traumatic stress disorder, depression, brain injuries and substance abuse.
Overseen by staff that's undertrained, overstretched and overstressed, these units also have become dumping grounds for soldiers that commanders don't want in combat -- cancer patients, accident victims, drug addicts, potential suicides and troublemakers.
That's what a nine-month Trib investigation found -- much the same as what Deputy Undersecretary of Defense Noel Koch, tasked with alleviating suffering in these units, reported to top brass. For doing so, Mr. Koch was told he could be fired or resign. He quit. Yet now, the Army's inspector general has echoed both his findings and the Trib's.
The Army's failings in treating soldiers whose wounds, visible and not, alter their lives forever constitute the worst sort of dereliction of its most sacred duty -- its duty to those who wear its uniform.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.