Army Demands Money From Soldier Wounded in Iraq for Body Destroyed as Biohazard

Posted on | February 7, 2006

One thing that I love about supporters of Bush’s Extreme Family Feud in Iraq is how mindlessly the defend Bush and the actions of the Donald Rumsfeld is how they have latched on to the "if you do not support us and stop thinking for yourself, you are hurting our troops and aiding out enemy" and other bullshit. Then we come across little gems like a brief story I saw posted on RawStory about how a lieutenant in the US Army, William Rebrook IV from Charleston, WV, had his arm almost blown off and was billed $700 for the body armor he was wearing at the time. Apparently because field medics were more concerned with saving Rebrook’s life as opposed to meticulously tracking his body armor, he had to pay $700 or face a delay in his discharge.

On January 11th, 2005 Rebrook was injured by a roadside bomb that broke his arm and severed his artery. After being flown to a hospital in Baghdad, he was flown to a military base in Germany and then onto Walter Reed for even more surgery. Military doctors managed to save his arm. The armor ended up having to be destroyed as a biohazard due to the amount of blood from Rebrook’s injuries but no one made a record of it. Rather than give a soldier who was severely injured and almost died for his country the benefit of the doubt and just updated the records, the Army instead decided to instead send a bill. With the help of some friends in the Army, Rebrook was able to come up with the funds.

According the Rebrook, incidents like this are not isolated. Under the original policy, Rebrook’s simple explanation would have been enough but now the military requires reports. In certain situations I can understand why the military would want better documentation but conversely when you have people in the middle of a combat zone where the enemy is not only still alive and kicking but also submerged in the general population equipment is going to get damaged and the military personnel are going to be more concerned about the safety of their fellow soldiers/marines/etc. as well as their own personal safety. If a bomb injured me or I was treating someone in the field my mind is going to be on that and not where a trivial piece of equipment is.

Which side of the debate is not supporting our troops again?

External Links: