Controversies have emerged regarding the Department of Defense's categorization of injuries sustained by U.S. service members during a March 1 drone attack at the Port of Shuaiba.

關於美國國防部對 3 月 1 日舒艾巴港無人機襲擊中受傷美軍的分類方式，目前出現了爭議。

The current dispute centers on the divergence between official military designations and the clinical realities reported by affected personnel. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth asserted that approximately 90% of the 400 injured service members sustained minor injuries and returned to duty. However, survivors and their families contend that these metrics obfuscate the severity of the trauma. For instance, Chief Warrant Officer Rodney Bearman, despite sustaining shrapnel wounds, lung damage, and sensory loss, was classified as 'not seriously injured' (NSI). Similarly, Sergeant First Class Cory Hicks, who required multiple surgeries and remains in a recovery unit with a traumatic brain injury, was initially described to his spouse as having a 'minor jaw injury.'

目前的爭議焦點在於官方軍方定義與受傷人員所報告的臨床現實之間存在分歧。國防部長 Pete Hegseth 聲稱，在 400 名受傷軍人中，約 90% 為輕傷並已重返崗位。然而，倖存者及其家屬主張，這些指標掩蓋了創傷的嚴重程度。例如，首席權證軍官 Rodney Bearman 儘管遭受碎片傷、肺部受損及感官喪失，卻被分類為「非嚴重受傷」(NSI)。同樣地，一級軍曹 Cory Hicks 需要進行多次手術，且因創傷性腦損傷仍留在康復單位，但最初向其配偶描述的是「下顎輕傷」。

Institutional justifications for these classifications rely on specific regulatory definitions. An Army spokesperson clarified that the 'seriously injured' or 'very seriously injured' designations are reserved for patients facing a risk of mortality within a 72-hour window. Furthermore, the military maintains that assignment to soldier recovery units does not constitute a return to active duty, contradicting perceptions of the 'returned to duty' status cited by the Secretary.

軍方對這些分類的制度化辯解依據於特定的法規定義。一名陸軍發言人澄清，「嚴重受傷」或「極嚴重受傷」的定義僅限於在 72 小時窗口內面臨死亡風險的患者。此外，軍方堅持被分配至士兵康復單位並不構成重返現役，這與部長所引用的「重返崗位」狀態之認知相矛盾。

Parallel to the classification dispute, allegations of systemic operational failures have surfaced. Testimony from Major Stephen Ramsbottom and other personnel suggests that leadership was notified of force protection and medical resource deficits prior to the strike. These claims indicate that the absence of fixed aid stations and sufficient medical personnel necessitated the use of civilian vehicles for casualty evacuation and self-triage. Consequently, Senate Democrats have initiated an inquiry into these intelligence and protection lapses. While Major General Michael J. Leeney defended the technical accuracy of the NSI designation in correspondence with Senator Shelley Moore Capito, the Army has stated that a formal investigation into the circumstances of the attack is complete, with findings pending next-of-kin briefings.

與分類爭議平行的是，關於系統性操作失敗的指控也隨之浮現。來自 Stephen Ramsbottom 少校及其他人員的證詞顯示，領導層在襲擊前已收到關於部隊保護與醫療資源不足的通知。這些指控指出，由於缺乏固定醫療站及足夠的醫療人員，導致傷員撤離與自我分流不得不使用民用車輛。因此，參議院民主黨人已針對這些情報與保護缺失啟動調查。雖然 Michael J. Leeney 少將在與參議員 Shelley Moore Capito 的通信中為 NSI 定義的技術準確性辯護，但陸軍表示對襲擊情況的正式調查已完成，結果有待向近親簡報。

The situation remains characterized by a conflict between the Army's adherence to technical casualty definitions and the claims of injured personnel regarding the minimization of their trauma.

目前的情況仍呈現出軍方堅持技術性傷亡定義，與受傷人員指稱其創傷被淡化之間的衝突。