The Maverick Conservative

There is an absolutely ridiculous story out there about a push to expand the definition of "wound" for the award of a Purple Heart to include post-traumatic stress, combat shock, and perhaps other mental "stress" diseases.

That this "movement" is even getting far enough to be considered seriously is disturbing evidence that our country is going INSANE. 

What is going on here?  I can tell you.  There are people out there--leftists primarily, but including perhaps some "veterans" groups who want to show that they are DOING things for veterans--who are trying to USE veterans to advance themselves. Is there really any feeling among soldiers that it is UNJUST to award Purple Hearts only for physical wounds.  I don't think so (I was in the U.S. Army, atlhough 1969 to 1971 is now more than 35 years ago).  This is an attempt by "INTEREST GROUPS" to convince soldiers that they "deserve" this, mainly to advance the INTREST GROUPS (and perhaps to try to embarrass the Bush Administration, or others like me, with the charge that they don't "care" about veterans.

how does DEVALUING the Purple Heart show you "care" about veterans.  This whole thing about "20% of Iraq/Afghanistan veterans" suffering from post-traumatic stress and other "mental problems" is a LEFTIST ploy (for the most part, although, again, there may be some veterans groups playing for attention by making a big deal out of it).   I have previously ANALYZED the really stupid stories by the desicable Associated Press on this subject (using the really DISGRAEFUL phrase, "mental problems", as in "20% of Afghan and Iraq veterans have "mental problems").   That has all been an attempt to USE veterans for political purposes.   One of the ideas here is to not only blame the Bush Administration for the deteriorating mental health of our soldiers, but to DEMAND so many "benefits" for our soldiers that Republicans finally balk.  Leftists are trying to USE veterans as a way to expand government spending, and taxes on the "rich"--as a way to expand that tactic into other areas.

You doubt me?  Don't.  There is stiall another proposal out there to "give" soldiers who have served 3 years some credit for school.  This is being SOLD by Democrats by saying that anyhone who makes $500,000.00 a year should be willing to pay $2500.00 to a veteran to go to school.  They OWE it to the veterans, is the argument, and they can well afford it. 

Of course, there are MANY charities for providing education to veterans, and children of veterans (often emphasizing combat veterans).  Rush Limbaugh has one.   The whole idea here really does not have much to do with "concern" for veterans.  Leftists don't LIKE the military much, or respect soldiers much (generally, although there are obviously exceptions).  The whole idea here is to SELL the idea of tas "surcharges" on the wealthy (no different from a tax increase of any kind--the money all goes into the U.S. Treasury)  to fund DEMORACTIC/leftist programs. 

This attempt to USE the desire of the people to reward veterans is as cynical as you can get.

This idea of DILUTING the Purple Heart is worse than cynical.  Right now the Purple Heart is a makk of a very specific thing:  a WOUND suffered in a SPECIFIC COMBAT INCIDENT.  It is sepaate from accidents,  injuries and illnesses suffered elsewhere in the military (although people serving other than in combat may be necessary for the combat effort).  Post-traumatic stress, of course, is NOT attributable (necessairly) to a specific incident.  Some combat shock may be, but once you get past the bright line test for a Purple Heart you are simply opening a can of worms (the PURPOSE, really, of the people pushing this).

Now people who serve in COMBAT should receive a badge or patch just for that (they DO, don't they?).  Would soldiers even WANT to have a medal for suffering post-traumatic stress (separate from the Purple Heart). I think NOT.  That merely illustrates how changing the requirements for a Purple Heart DEVALUES the award.  It shows more a LACK of "concern" for soldiers than a real concern.

Should combat veterans have access to mental health care?  Sure they should.  In fact, of course, ALL soldiers should have access to mental health care--even after leaving the service, as to service related conditions.  Should veterans (like me) get FREE HEATLH CARE FOR LIFE merely becauses we served a few years in the military? I don't see it.  Leftists have no problem with it, because they want substantially that for EVERYONE.

The idea that we should just throw money at veterans as part of the idea that we should throw money at EVERYONE does NOT show "concern" for veterans.  It just shows a desie to expand Federal expenditures, while purporting to gt the money from the "rich".

Whether you agree totally with me on that or not, this idea of changing the standards for a Purple Heart is NUTTY on its face.  It should be rejected out of hand (which probably means it won't be).

|  Add to del.icio.us |  digg this