Should POTUS be better briefed before making commentary?

2020-02-03T08:37:47-05:00

Background: In a 01 Feb 2020 STARS AND STRIPES article entitled "I'm not the same': Hurdles remain for troops, veterans with TBI despite increase in awareness" the following language was provided:

"More than headaches

As of Thursday, more than 60 U.S. military personnel have been diagnosed with TBI from an Iranian missile attack Jan. 8 in Iraq. That’s far from President Donald Trump’s initial announcement that no one was harmed in the attack. News of the brain injuries came out soon after and the number of cases has continued to rise.

Trump later described the injuries as “headaches,” and said he had seen far worse.

Several veterans organizations are accusing Trump of minimizing the severity of TBI."

Also, seems like this comment in the same article...

"Continuing pain

Gen. Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told reporters Thursday the full extent of the injuries from the Jan. 8 missile attack might not be known for a year or two. In some cases, he said, troops would be monitored 'for the rest of their lives.' "

...is something the JCOS should have thought about at the time POTUS needed his 'wise council' to not sound unduly insensitive.

Discussion: While no one was "killed", which is what I suspect POTUS was trying to say, the words "no one was harmed" came out. We know now that these troops were apparently "harmed" because TBI is not only direct contact trauma to the head, but also concussive from the force of a concussive wave such as with an IED, grenade, or missile explosion. This may also be directly proportional to the proximity of the individual to the location of the explosion.

This said, I am NOT a neurologist, but as a retired US Navy Corpsman I have treated what were initially minor head injuries (usually cuts / bruises after some bar fight induced by alcohol on liberty), only to see such injuries get work with headaches 3-5 days later. Then requiring transfer to a hospital for further diagnosis.

The attached adult head picture shows how a concussive wave from an explosion operates. During my career when I was a young ER Corpsman we saw all sorts of trauma, but none disturbed me more that trauma to kids. The other picture shows "Shaken Baby Syndrome" that induced a form of TBI, but in infants or small children that are abused.

So my question is this:

Should POTUS, when NO ONE is "killed" also state something like 'we also have to assess the health status of those attacked for other injuries' before using words like 'no one was harmed'?

I am NOT into "political correctness"; however, I am into "health and welfare appropriateness"! Meaning, when a senior non-medical (aka Line) officer asked me about a status of someone in my sickbay, I always erred on the side of caution to make sure that for any status of an injured sailor or Marine it was based on as much information as possible so I provide an accurate status that also held to my patient's privacy, but complied with my CO's need to know.

Note: I use the words "extended-medical" to mean that a senior medical officer should brief POTUS in such a say as to help him communicate more effectively that not only was NO ONE KILLED, but, the extend of other injuries is not yet know. Frankly, instead of using "no one was harmed" the real objective was to communicate that no one was killed and that direct message language is what, at least IMHO should have been used.

Also, I don't care who is POTUS his General/Admiral level briefers should also make sure they brief POTUS in such a way so as to allow POTUS to communicate in a more effective manner.

Just saying......................

Response by Lt Col Charlie Brown made Feb 3 at 2020 8:39 AM

2020-02-03T08:39:54-05:00

I am not sure if that would have stopped his Twitter finger anyway CPO Nate S.

Response by LCDR Joshua Gillespie made Feb 3 at 2020 9:01 AM

2020-02-03T09:01:47-05:00

Trump is playing a "role". Yes, yes...I voted for the man (and likely will again for reasons I've repeatedly stated here and elsewhere), but I've cautioned many against believing in the "character" he has been playing to secure votes. That "role" includes projecting a mindset that believes everything was "better" in the "good old days". Forgive me, but I have to believe that many view the advanced body armor, expensive systems, platforms, and initiatives of today's Armed Forces as evidence of a "weaker" force when compared to what "they" remember from their own service...let alone the service of those that went before them. I know I'm speaking heresy here; but tell me it's not a common thread to believe that if warfighters of the past endured the "Battle of the Bulge", Iwo Jima, and Khe Sanh in cotton utilities and a steel pot helmet...warriors in GoreTex and Kevlar, riding about in armored vehicles and connected by "advanced" communications networks should fare at least as well? True or not, this is what Trump is capitalizing upon...embracing a narrative that lacking any practical experience, he cannot control. Even if the Surgeon General wrote his speeches, Trump would likely "wing it", if he thought it's what his "base" wants to hear...the other candidates in the upcoming election are no different. For my own part, I wish he would've acknowledged the fact that there is no such thing as conflict without casualty...and that we've learned a great deal about the physical risks of warfare over the last half-century. We join up knowing these risks, and if the cause we fight for is just...it is worth the risk. If he's sure in his policy, the President should not downplay these threats. There is simply no way to know how many veterans of previous wars went home with "invisible injuries" that led to substance or spousal abuse, lost potential, and ruined lives.

Response by PO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 3 at 2020 9:18 AM

2020-02-03T09:18:17-05:00

It wasn't just that he didn't know what he was talking about, he was attempting to minimize the importance of those types of injuries.

It would have been better if he said something along the lines of, "service members exhibited TBI/concussion-like symptoms and are receiving treatment, yadda yadda yadda, some expectation of recovery." Instead of basically being like, "no big deal".

The issue is that there were initially definitive reports of zero casualties and that was used as a way to minimize the missile strikes as "face-saving" measures by Iran. So, we stood down, they stood down, whatever. Then it comes out that there were casualties and I get it, TBI symptoms can take time to show. It can really start out as "just a headache" and then it's like, "oh, this isn't getting better like a normal headache."

So it becomes a back-and-forth where people are like, "I thought you said there weren't casualties" and his response is, "oh, it's not a big deal. Just headaches. I've seen worse."

The minimization and trying to save-face is where I had the biggest issue. It wouldn't matter really if he had been properly briefed because he shoots from the hip so much when he tries to backtrack and cover himself.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 3 at 2020 9:26 AM

2020-02-03T09:26:55-05:00

I have to say, it does seem like there is an excessively high number of concussions from a single rocket attack. I realize that these are bigger than anything the Iraqis or Afghans threw at us, but I don't know if we had that many injuries from rocket and mortar attacks in a whole tour, and we got several attacks per day. I am on the outside looking in, but it feels like a Purple Heart grab.
Not to belittle any injuries suffered in the slightest. I know several Soldiers who got rung and never quite were the same. Sometimes I wonder if all those IEDs made me different... or if I'm just getting old.
But in terms of what should have been said, the President's people need to ensure that he knows what is really going on so that he doesn't get facts wrong when he comments on situations. If he goes off the reservation and comments off the cuff, there isn't much they can do about it.

Response by PVT Kenneth Krause made Feb 3 at 2020 9:35 AM

2020-02-03T09:35:27-05:00

Absolutely.

Response by LTC Jason Mackay made Feb 3 at 2020 11:11 AM

2020-02-03T11:11:10-05:00

The POTUS doesnt respond well to being briefed. He is briefed and doesn’t retain it or is briefed something and discards it for a variety of reasons.

Response by SrA Jared Hall made Feb 3 at 2020 12:33 PM

2020-02-03T12:33:56-05:00

Headaches have never been considered a “serious injury” and when he said that he went on to clarify further that the injuries were not serious RELATIVE to other injuries he’s seen. Injuries such as ruptured organs, severed limbs and arteries, sucking chest wounds, collapsing lungs, etc. He wasn’t sayingTBI isn’t serious, he said headaches weren’t serious. Are they going to go back and examine ALL of the individuals who have been under rocket or mortar attack, or IED/VBIED explosions etc. who didn’t even know that the headaches or other symptoms of TBI they may have experienced, were related to any such injury? Or, scrutinize the docs, or leadership who have them the Motrin cure-all and told them to suck it up??? Or is this only a big deal, now, because it was an opportunity to jump on Trump?

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 3 at 2020 12:39 PM

2020-02-03T12:39:06-05:00

I believe that when your not checked then you tend to make statements that are all over the map. Everyone needs someone to check their internal facts!

Response by Maj John Bell made Feb 3 at 2020 2:31 PM

2020-02-03T14:31:05-05:00

Or everyone could stop being so sensitive... When did we turn into a nation of emotional lightweights. My son was a pedestrian hit by a car, TBI was the mechanism of death. I'm not pissed off because my President is not a medical expert and I sure as Hell don't expect him to be on a leash. But if you want to be wronged by someone you hate... any excuse will do.

Guess what our enemies don't give a damn if they hurt our feelings, in fact it emboldens them.

Response by SGT Steve McFarland made Feb 3 at 2020 2:44 PM

2020-02-03T14:44:53-05:00

He had to say something in the aftermath of the attack, and it was not immediately known the extent of any injuries.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Feb 3 at 2020 3:50 PM

2020-02-03T15:50:17-05:00

One of the problems of egomaniacs is they have a lofty perception of themselves.

Response by CPL Gary Pifer made Feb 3 at 2020 5:48 PM

2020-02-03T17:48:15-05:00

The Army and the VA called my TBI headaches for years... Headaches are symptoms and TBI is the diagnosis..
Any way this is a Leftist and media attack on Trump, as they could give a rat's ass about the military or Veterans. If Obama said this...crickets.....

Response by SPC Erich Guenther made Feb 3 at 2020 5:50 PM

2020-02-03T17:50:29-05:00

Well in this case Secretary of Defense found what the briefing issue was and is going to fix it. As for nitty gritty details on everything. No, TBI is not something Potus deals with and I would not expect him to know the details of it. I would expect the head of the VA, Surgeon General and Sec of Defense to know more about it than POTUS and it would be their job to fill in the details in meetings.

Response by LtCol Robert Quinter made Feb 3 at 2020 9:50 PM

2020-02-03T21:50:54-05:00

POTUS repeated what he was told by someone from the pentagon who repeated what they were told by the theater command who repeated what they were told by the base commander who got his information from an all hands muster. If you were in the formation and not bleeding, you were considered uninjured. The brain injuries were not discovered in time for the reporter's question