In asymmetric war, where host-nation troops often fight alongside Coalition forces or other foreign troops fighting on their behalf, the rules governing medical care for detainees are morally puzzling. The rules of medical eligibility offer Coalition forces access to superlative medical care for any injury whatsoever but only provide short-term emergency care to host-nations allies suffering injuries that threaten life, limb, and eyesight. After that, host-nation allies return to the local healthcare system to manage as best they can.

Captured enemy soldiers, on the other hand, have it considerably better. By law and practice, detainees and prisoners-of-war enjoy a much higher level of care than host nation allies. International law demands that one army treat the captured soldiers of another as their own. And, they often do. In the wake of Abu Ghraib, this assertion might sound odd and cynical. When we think about detainees in Abu Ghraib, or Guantanamo Bay, torture and ill-treatment come to mind, not comprehensive routine medical treatment. But Abu Ghraib was the exception, while a consistently high level of care for detainees - far superior to what Iraqi or Afghan soldiers or citizens ever received - was the rule.

Why, then, do detainees merit better care than local allies who support Coalition troops? The answer is: they do not. If anything, it seems that allied warfighters deserve better care than captured insurgents receive and (almost) on par with the exceptional medicine Coalition forces receive. For its part, detainee care should meet the same standards as the care and treatment afforded all local nationals. What then of torture, ill-treatment, and forced feeding?