And the rest of the article

is where? He starts out great and then poof!

TIME.com: The Iraq War Comes Home -- Page 1: "The comprehensive survey of deployed troops began in 1997, following the lack of good data on soldiers' well-being in the first Gulf War. Thousands of soldiers in the 1990-91 conflict complained of a wide range of physical and mental ailments that came to be called Gulf War Syndrome, and for which a definitive cause has never been found. A government panel concluded a year ago that roughly one in seven veterans of the first Gulf War suffered war-related medical problems, about half the total reporting such problems in the current conflict.

William Winkenwerder Jr., assistant defense secretary for health affairs, has said the Pentagon has taken steps to prevent a recurrence of Gulf War Syndrome. Many experts believes its myriad of symptoms— pain, fatigue, diarrhea and cognitive impairment, among others—is linked to the toxic chemical soup, including Saddam Hussein's stockpiles of nerve agents destroyed by U.S. forces, that contaminated the battlefield in the 1990-91 conflict. 'We've done quite a lot more to set up preventive health systems—monitoring of soil, water, air and just ongoing monitoring of the environment to ensure as best we can that people avoid things, either infectious agent or toxins or any kind of exposures that might cause disease,' he said early in 2004. But he added that such steps would not eliminate the stress of combat. 'Being in these environments and fighting this kind of war is clearly going to be stressful for some people.'"

Shouldn't the writer conclude the article? Resolve some points from the article, not just a quote in the ether. Maybe extrapolate some of the numbers out so people can get a perspective? This is a subject that deserves more than lip service.

This article feels half done or *ssed, I can't really tell.