Thursday, April 2, 2009

Vets say Definition of Combat Outdated

. Thursday, April 2, 2009

In an article that appeared on http://www.military.com/news/article/vets-say-definition-of-combat-outdated.html veterans groups testified that the law is outdated, and veterans are not receiving the medical benefits that they should. Most of the cases that are rejected concern Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome or PTSD, and they are turned down because the veteran cannot prove they were involved in combat based on the classic definition.

Rep. John Hall, D-N.Y., chairman of the House Veterans Affairs subcommittee is asking to change the definition of a combat veteran, as any veteran who served in a combat theater of operations or in combat against a hostile force.

Fist off let me state that I am a veteran of Iraq, and would easily fall under the proposed new definition of combat veteran. But, I do not agree with the change in definition for combat veteran. I do agree that you do not need to be a combat veteran to suffer from PTSD. But changing the definition of combat veteran will not magically allow everyone suffering from PTSD access to the care they need, in fact it will still exclude suffers, that never set foot in Iraq but may have been stationed in Qatar, or Kuwait. Both of those places were relatively safe, but if you think that serving in either one of those places inoculated you from PTSD, then you are very wrong.

Defining combat as serving in a combat theater of operations or in combat against a hostile force, would allow thousands more veterans the opportunity to seek disability compensation for PTSD, which could potentially costs hundreds of millions of dollars annually. I don?t care about the millions the government has to spend on veterans to get them the care they need, what I do care about are the thousands of claims that are not truly combat related that would slip though under the change in the definition.

But what I am most worried about, with a change in definition is that the real combat veteran, the Soldier that was sleeping in old Iraqi bunkers, dealing with mortars dropping at their feet and not exploding, setting a charge on a door of a suspected terrorists house, etc. These are the Soldiers that deserve the term combat veteran, and changing the definition belittles what they did.

Increase PTSD benefits to all military personnel, but leave the definition of combat veteran to those that truly deserve it.

1 comments:

Blogger0311 said...

I am a Marine that saw my share of combat in the Triangle of Death in Iraq. I agree with leaving the definition alone and recognizing that PTSD among veterans may be non-combat related.