It is unlikely this has been the first time under fire this deployment for those troops unless they were very fresh off the plane. Between IS remnants operating as guerrillas and Iranian backed militias indirect fire attacks happen. Sure, cumulative stressors matter. This did involve more and much bigger warheads than typical. Still, this isn’t likely the first or last traumatic stressor that they will be exposed to during their current deployment. Especially at al-Asad airbase where there is a larger IS threat. Let’s not assign this one more importance just because it got much more media attention than the rest.
The best I can see out of this is evidence for the old saw I learned as a staff officer - the first report is always wrong. Being wrong is not lying. Although possible, I am not even seeing a lot of evidence for it being wrong due to negligence or incompetence. These kind of injuries are not necessarily obvious in the time frame that saw that first report. Something severe like loss of consciousness or double vision right after the attack should be caught. More minor symptoms like headaches or minor dizziness just aren’t going to make that first report.
I just assumed MTBI (mild traumatic brain injury) was a possible injury that wasn’t covered when they said there were no casualties. I expected MTBI was the major cause when I saw the first report with 11 unspecified casualties this morning. I left open the option that there were a couple sprains and strains type injuries related to being in a hurry to throw on their protective gear and hurry to a bunker.
My biggest surprise from today’s reports is the amount of surprise in the reaction to these reports. Sometimes I forget that my experience is atypical.
That’s fair. All the more reason not to diminish the impact of deployments to our personnel over there. People send to be pretty cavalier about sending troops in general and attacks like this in particular.
Not to defend the Trump administration, but hiding your casualties from the enemy is warfare 101.
Besides, it helped de-escalate the situation. If it had become public that Americans were wounded, the Iranians might have been encouraged to attack again, and the Americans would have felt compelled to retaliate. Better to keep stuff under wraps for a bit until things cool down.
This is the same as, “Which Tramp appointees have ever had contact with the press?”
My un-answered meta-question: “To the US, what does victory in the MidEast look like? How will we know we’ve won?” I recall a paperback titled, “If You Don’t Know Where You’re Going, You’ll Probably End Up Somewhere Else”. Where does endless war go?
American service members are obliged to be attentive to the care and maintenance of military equipment, such as themselves. Military engagements of the last century required policy review regarding uniform decorations, especially helmets, that seemed to reflect political opinions (as in “FTA”, commonly interpreted as “Fondle the Armament”…) Since serving combat personnel had already been issued their full set of political opinions, these were deemed unnecessary, but otherwise irrelevant.
Helmet decorations like the so called “peace sign” were frowned upon as enhancing the enemy’s targeting skills and encouraging moral turpitude and situational relativism in limiting the enemy’s lifestyle choices, with maximum prejudice.