CAVEAT: I'm trying to tread lightly here around a sensitive issue, but I have a question I think is worth hearing more about.
To me, it makes the ultimate sense to have people who have been there, done that share their hard-earned knowledge - there's NOTHING to replace first hand experience when it comes to sharing life-saving techniques and information.
I'd be curious to hear from anyone with direct experience on this, though: the article sorta-kinda hints that some individuals may be, for the want of a better word, squeamish about having the wounded about. Is that the case on the ground for those of you working through these things?
Part of me wonders whether if any discomfort (again, I'm groping for the right word) individuals may feel, or behave on, is individual, or based on the "discomfort" of the system? I can't look into people's brain or hearts, but is there a reluctance on the part of some people in the system about having other troops regularly interacting with the wounded? Maybe as a reminder of the mortality of one's flesh (as opposed to, looking at the other side of the coin, how a strong heart and perservering spirit can do much to overcome scars of the flesh)?
If the system is firm about treating the wounded as much as possible like colleagues who can still contribute meaningfully, but in a very different way than they have before, I would think this would filter down via the leadership mechanism to the troops. If the system is squeamish is a whole, though, that would have to change tout suite before other reforms can happen. I know the CDS appears keen on having the final say on the fate of the wounded, but there's a LOT of levels of bureaucracy/leadership between him and the individual members working so hard to get back into the fight (if not literally, at least into areas through which they can contribute more effectively).
