Wounded soldiers, families accuse Army of downplaying war injuries

Wounded Soldiers and Families Alleging Army’s Downplaying of War Injuries

Wounded soldiers families accuse Army of downplaying – In March, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth responded to inquiries about the conflict with Iran by asserting that “nearly 90%” of the 400 American service members injured during the engagement had incurred only minor wounds and were back in action. However, recent accounts from soldiers and their loved ones challenge this narrative, suggesting the military’s classification of injuries may not reflect the true severity of the harm inflicted. These claims have sparked a growing concern among families who feel the Army is underreporting the impact of the conflict on their loved ones.

Severity of Injuries Under Scrutiny

Chief Warrant Officer Rodney Bearman, a 57-year-old Iowa native, sustained critical injuries when an Iranian drone struck his work station at the Port of Shuaiba in Kuwait on March 1. Medical records obtained by CBS News reveal that Bearman suffered a concussion, partial hearing and vision loss, and lung damage—conditions that classify him as a combat casualty. Yet, the Army categorized his injuries as “not seriously injured,” a designation that his wife, Amy Bearman, finds misleading.

“That assessment is unacceptable,” Amy Bearman said during an interview with CBS News. “He was treated and released, but the reality was far more severe. It felt like they were trying to ease the burden on the families by downplaying what had actually happened.”

Bearman was among over 20 service members injured in the deadliest strike on American troops since 2021. His case is part of a broader pattern, with multiple survivors and their families alleging the military is not treating the injuries as combat-related. An Army spokesperson dismissed these claims, stating the classifications used are based on specific criteria and are not being misinterpreted.

Citing Pentagon protocols, the official explained that a soldier is labeled “seriously injured” or “very seriously injured” if they face a risk of death within 72 hours of the incident. This definition, however, has raised questions about whether it adequately captures the long-term effects of trauma, such as concussions and organ damage. Soldiers like Cory Hicks, a 37-year-old sergeant first class, argue that the military’s focus on short-term outcomes overlooks the lingering challenges they face.

Life-Changing Phone Call

Amy Bearman’s experience highlights the emotional toll of the Army’s injury classifications. She recalled receiving an official call from Fort Knox on March 2, just hours after the drone attack. “They told me my husband’s injuries were classified as NSI, which they said stands for ‘not seriously injured,’” she recounted. “He was treated and released back to duty. That was a huge relief. I think maybe that was the first time I took a breath in 24 hours.”

“They said your husband was injured, he has a minor jaw injury, and he’s going to be returned to duty,” Hicks said, echoing the statement made to his wife after the attack. “I absolutely believe the Army and Pentagon are trying to minimize the incident’s impact.”

Despite the reassurance, Bearman’s condition worsened. On March 3, he called his wife from a Kuwaiti hospital, sounding exhausted. “I could just hear him breathing and then he finally said, ‘I’m going to be OK.’ I waited a few moments and then asked if he returned to duty. It seemed like forever before he answered me, and then he said, ‘I can’t go back,’” Amy Bearman said. The delay in clearance for duty, she argued, reflected the discrepancy between the military’s assessment and the soldiers’ actual condition.

The strike at the Port of Shuaiba, which killed six U.S. soldiers, has been a focal point for families seeking clarity. Amy Bearman noted that her husband’s unit had relocated to the tactical outpost weeks before the attack. “His unit, the Iowa-based 103rd Sustainment Command, moved from Camp Arifjan to Port of Shuaiba in late February,” she explained. “He had left for Kuwait in September 2025—his fifth deployment since we married nearly 25 years ago. I knew if anything happened, I’d get a direct call or visit.”

Bearman’s story is not isolated. Other service members, including Hicks, have shared similar experiences. Hicks, who suffered severe shrapnel wounds from the blast, described how the Army’s initial report was vague. “They said my husband had a minor jaw injury and would be cleared for duty,” he said. “But he needed multiple surgeries and was in the hospital for days. It felt like they were rushing to declare it a minor event to avoid deeper scrutiny.”

While the Army maintains that its classifications are precise, families insist the process is inconsistent. “They told me the definition of ‘not seriously injured’ is based on immediate life-threatening risks,” Amy Bearman said. “But my husband’s injuries were far from minor. He was in pain, unable to work, and required ongoing medical care. The military didn’t seem to recognize the full extent of what he was going through.”

Systemic Concerns and Broader Implications

The incident has sparked broader questions about how the military handles injury assessments during high-intensity operations. Some soldiers reported being cleared for duty after minimal recovery, only to later discover their injuries required specialized treatment. “Duty” in this context refers to soldiers being sent back to active assignments while still in recovery units, according to a Pentagon spokesperson. Yet, this practice has left families feeling uncertain about whether their loved ones are being fully supported.

Several wounded soldiers have also raised concerns about the lack of transparency. “We didn’t know the severity of the injuries until days later,” Amy Bearman said. “It felt like we were kept in the dark while the military tried to move on quickly. We just wanted to understand what our families were facing.”

While the Army defends its approach, citing established protocols, the families argue that these guidelines may not account for the complexity of modern warfare. “The blast wasn’t just a minor incident,” Amy Bearman emphasized. “It was a full-scale attack that left our loved ones with life-altering injuries. The military’s system works well for some, but it fails for others like Rodney.”

Despite the controversy, the Army remains steadfast in its stance. “The care and well-being of our Soldiers is of the highest priority,” a spokesperson wrote in a statement to CBS News. “Any assertion that the Army seeks to downplay a soldier’s injuries is simply not true. We are committed to accurate reporting and ensuring our personnel receive the support they need.”

Call for Reevaluation

As the conflict with Iran continues, families of the injured are pushing for a reevaluation of how the military classifies wounds. They believe the current system underestimates the long-term consequences of combat and leaves soldiers and their loved ones in limbo. “We want the Army to acknowledge the real impact of these injuries,” Amy Bearman said. “It’s not just about whether a soldier can return to duty—it’s about their quality of life after the battle.”

The Pentagon’s protocols, while structured, may need adjustment to better reflect the diverse nature of injuries in today’s conflicts. With the war in the Middle East intensifying, the Army’s approach to assessing harm has become a critical issue for both service members and their families. As more reports emerge, the question remains: are the military’s classifications a reflection of the truth, or a way to ease the emotional burden on those who serve?

For now, the Bearmans and others like them continue to advocate for clarity and accountability. Their stories, they say, are a reminder that the cost of war extends beyond the battlefield—into the lives of those who return home, often with injuries that demand more than just a simple label.