A report aired on 60 Minutes on Sunday shed light on the under-reported threat combat soldiers faced when sent back out into the theater with a concussion, a decision that has had long-lasting repercussions on American veterans.

For years, concussions have been an invisible and therefore neglected injury within the armed services. At the height of the Iraq War, the standard operating procedure was to have soldiers who had sustained head injuries from the explosion of IEDs or other trauma to go back out into the field soon thereafter. In doing so, these soldiers — suffering from symptoms including severe aches, double vision, and nausea — were put at risk of suffering a second concussion before the first had healed, an event that heightens the chance of permanent brain damage.

Maj. Ben Richards, a retired Army veteran, was one of the soldiers sent back out after a concussion who has now been diagnosed with brain injury. “If I could trade traumatic brain injury for a single-leg amputation, I’d probably do that in a second,” he told 60 Minutes, underscoring the difference between visible injuries and those hidden inside the brain. Before his new diagnosis, Richards was told he instead had Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). “If you have PTSD and you are not improving through counseling, then it’s your fault,” Richards said of the stigma that still accompanies such a diagnosis. “It was my fault that I wasn’t getting better.”

Watch the full segment here:

Dr. David Hovda, head of UCLA’s Brain Injury Research Center, tried to explain the severity of even mild concussions on soldiers to the Pentagon in 2008. Instead, he was told it was “bad medicine” to keep soldiers out of the field to rest after a concussion, with an assembled team of Army doctors claiming that, because of the stigma that would entail, allowing for rest before being sent back out would make soldiers worse. Gen. Peter Chiarrelli — then the Vice Chief of Staff of the Army, now an advocate for mental health in the military — chose to side with Dr. Hovda in 2009 anyway, issuing an order saying that all forces who suffered concussions would be pulled from combat until their recovery.

Despite Chiarrelli’s decision, the numbers still aren’t good for veterans. 357,000 veterans — or about 20 percent of those who served in Iraq and Afghanistan — have experienced a traumatic brain injury as of January 2009. Despite that, only 46 percent of those who experienced a mild traumatic brain injury were screened for a concussion. At its peak in 2011, the Department of Defense reported 16 new concussions were inflicted per day.

Last year, the NFL donated $30 million to study concussions, in partnership with the U.S. military. Efforts are also under way to raise some $90 million to construct more brain injury centers along the lines of the National Intrepid Center of Excellence, the military’s most advanced brain injury evaluation center. Nine additional centers would enable the military to care for 9,000 brain injuries per year, the amount of new injuries officials expect as the war in Afghanistan winds down.

Ten years after the first American bombs fell on Baghdad, the United States is still paying the costs for the invasion of Iraq — monetarily, strategically, psychologically and morally. The decision to launch the war is sure to be re-debated ad nauseum over the coming days. Former Defense Secretary Robert Gates said on Sunday that it’s “too soon to tell” whether the Iraq war was a success. Here’s just five reasons why he’s wrong:

1. The debt

At the start of the war, the Bush administration predicted that it would cost around $50-60 billion in total. They were wrong by more than a factor of ten, sending the U.S.’ debt soaring, a condition that has yet to be rectified. According to a recent study, the war is set to have cost the U.S $2.2 trillion, though that number may reach up to $4 trillion thanks to interest payments on the loans taken out to finance the conflict. Of that staggering amount, at least $10 billion of it was completely wasted in rebuilding efforts.

2. The physical and psychological strain on U.S. troops.

The soldiers charged with fighting the war were stretched to their limits, put through multiple tours, with increasing length of time overseas as the war stretched on and shrinking downtime in between each. All-told, over 4,000 U.S. troops died during the country’s time in Iraq, with another 31,000 wounded in action. In the aftermath, the cost of providing medical care to veterans has doubled, adding to the difficulties faced by those who served. Up to 35 percent of Iraq War veterans will suffer from PTSD according to a 2009 study, while the suicide rate among veterans has jumped to 22 per day.

3. The forgotten war in Afghanistan.

Even worse, the war in Iraq caused the U.S. to take its eye off the ball in Afghanistan. Rather than following through, the Bush administration allowed the country to stagnate, prompting a Taliban resurgence beginning in 2004. As the West focused almost exclusively on Iraq, Taliban fighters imported tactics seen in Iraq to great effect, keeping the Afghan government weak and U.S.-led NATO forces on their heels. The result: the United States is still attempting to tamp down on Taliban momentum today.

4. The opportunity costs.

Aside from missed opportunities in Afghanistan, the Iraq War-effort was all-consuming, pulling resources from all other areas of U.S. defense policy. Relationships with key allies were allowed to grow stale and U.S. prestige around the world plummeted. Fighting in Iraq was realized to be a diversion from combating al Qaeda, drawing funding that could have gone towards a litany of other efforts to effectively counter terrorism.

5. The strengthening of Iran and al Qaeda.

The power vacuum left after the fall of Saddam and the lack of adequate U.S. forces left room for U.S. adversaries to fill the void. Counter to what some still believe, Al Qaeda had no presence in Iraq prior to 2003. Instead, it was only in the post-Saddam climate that they gained a foothold in the form of Al Qaeda in Iraq. The group continues to carry out attacks against civilians to this day, keeping the Iraqi government on edge.

In the end, it was not the United States that gained the most strategically from invading Iraq, but the Shiite-dominated Islamic Republic of Iran. In removing Saddam Hussein’s predominantly Sunni regime from power, the U.S. opened the door to a greater Iranian influence in the region. That influence has been seen playing out counter to U.S. interests in situations such as allowing Iranian planes bearing weapons for Syria to cross Iraqi airspace.

“The end of former Iraq President Saddam Hussein’s brutal regime represents a consider- able global good, and a nascent democratic Iraqi republic partnered with the United States could potentially yield benefits in the future,” CAP’s Matt Duss writes in the Iraq War Ledger, A Look at the War’s Human, Financial, and Strategic Costs, “But when weighing those possible benefits against the costs of the Iraq intervention, there is simply no conceivable calculus by which Operation Iraqi Freedom can be judged to have been a successful or worthwhile policy. The war was intended to show the extent of America’s power. It succeeded only in showing its limits.”

By Danielle Baussan

A group of retired high level U.S. military officers are calling on Congress to repeal an amendment to the FY 2011 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) that they say interferes with efforts to prevent military suicides.

USA Today reported last month that 2012 was the worst year for military suicides since careful tracking began in 2001. A military suicide occurs about once every 80 minutes and most of these suicides are a spontaneous act committed with a private firearm. But medical professionals and commanding officers can’t even ask at-risk service members about concerns about suicide or whether a suicidal service member has a gun at home. That’s due to an FY 2011 NDAA provision, Section 1062, introduced by Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) that prevents any questions about firearms, even when a military member is thought to be considering suicide or a harm to others.

In a letter sent to Members of Congress last week, twelve retired military leaders, including Retired Brigadier General Stephen Xenakis of the U.S. Army, said Congress should repeal Inhofe’s measure as “an immediate step that can and must be taken now to save lives.” This is a clear call for action by military leaders who have seen the impacts of “suicide gag orders” firsthand.

Now, it’s up to Congress — really, the Senate — to make it happen. The New York Times quoted Inhofe supporting an amendment “if it clears up any confusion” about whether people can ask about weapons to prevent suicide. Earlier this year, the Republican-led House of Representatives cleared up that confusion, passing language in the House version of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) to allow commanding officers and health officials to ask service members about suicidal thoughts and private guns.

So we’ve got the original sponsor on record supporting efforts to clarify the language, a House-passed NDAA that includes that language, and highly decorated military officials asking Congress for their help. And yet, there’s not one amendment in the current Senate version of the NDAA to help prevent military suicide.

It’s time for the Senate to take a stand and include some version of the House language in their NDAA. Leaving an issue like this on the cutting room floor does a disservice members of the U.S. military.

A Pentagon-funded study by the National Center for Veterans Studies at the University of Utah has found evidence that emotional distress is likely the top reason American soldiers commit suicide, USA Today reports:

When researchers asked 72 soldiers at Fort Carson, Colo., why they tried to kill themselves, out of the 33 reasons they had to choose from, all of the soldiers included one in particular — a desire to end intense emotional distress.

“This really is the first study that provides scientific data saying that the top reason … these guys are trying to kill themselves is because they have this intense psychological suffering and pain,” said Craig Bryan, co-author of the study by the National Center for Veterans Studies at the University of Utah that will be published in the coming months.

The Associated Press reported last month that the suicide rate in the military is at its highest level in more than a decade. According to Pentagon data, an average of one military suicide occurred per day in the first six months of 2012 and military deaths from suicide outweighed combat deaths by a two-to-one ratio, a dramatic uptick since 2010 and 2011 when military suicides decreased from previous years.

“The core of the issue is that it’s not that people who attempt suicide … want to harm themselves as much as they want the pain they’re currently in to stop, and they don’t see any other way out,” said Army Col. Carl Castro, who is spearheading the military’s effort to study suicide prevention and treatment.

USA Today added that the new study “also found that the soldiers often listed many reasons — an average of 10 each — for suicide,” including “the urge to end chronic sadness, a means of escaping people or a way to express desperation.”

NATO combat operations in Afghanistan are expected to draw to a close by the middle of next year and the U.S. completed its withdrawal of troops from Iraq last December. But while fewer American soldiers are in the line of fire each day, new Pentagon statistics show that an average of one military suicide occurred each day in the first six months of 2012, the fastest pace in the past ten years.

The statistics reported by The Associated Press show that military deaths from suicide outweighed combat deaths by a two-to-one ratio, a dramatic uptick since 2010 and 2011 when military suicides decreased from previous years. See the chart below:

The 154 suicides for active duty troops in the first 155 days of 2012 raises serious questions about why military suicide rates have surged in the first half of 2012. Studies conducted by the Defense Department suggest that soldiers with multiple combat tours are more likely to commit suicide and other studies have found that combat exposure, post-traumatic stress, misuse of prescription medications and personal financial problems can all contribute to military suicides.

A report released last year [PDF] by the Center for a New American Security (CNAS) found that while the military and the Veterans Authority have taken admirable steps to improve suicide prevention and mental health counseling services but serious obstacles remain. They include:

Frequent personnel transfers complicate efforts to provide consistent mental health services.

Personnel transfers occuring quickly after return from deployments hampers efforts to identify mental health conditions in the post-deployment period.

Commanders are not always aware when subordinates are the subject investigation, an event which is sometimes a suicide trigger.

Soldiers are sometimes encouraged to provide untruthful answers in post-deployment mental health screening questionnaires.

A cultural stigma against mental health care persists in the armed forces.

Last month, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta sent an internal memo to the Pentagon’s top civilian and military leaders addressing the stigma associated with seeking helping for mental distress in the military.

“We must continue to fight to eliminate the stigma from those with post-traumatic stress and other mental health issues,” Panetta wrote, adding that commanders “cannot tolerate any actions that belittle, haze, humiliate or ostracize any individual, especially those who require or are responsibly seeking professional services.”