Purple Hearts

[GerryLP]

Hey folks!

Saturday night I watched a documentary called "Purple Hearts" in the International Film Channel (IFC).

With so many people pro and against the war in film floating around, I thought that this film truly echoed the feelings of just 5 former troops who had suffered limb and soul for the war.

It was a very telling story in their own words and I found it emotionally hitting personally, and I thought how amazing it was that even after giving up short of the ultimate sacrifice, these heroes said that they would go back and serve if allowed. The film is not biased in either direction. No commentaries nor editorials are added. Every now and then one could hear the interviewer follow-up with a question or clarify part of a question, but either way, I could not detect any hidden agendas.

Although some of these heroes could probably not be able to carry-on the mission without hurting themselves in their new reality, some of them could still serve.

I have mixed feelings about how quickly these heroes are taken-out from active ranks and pensioned. Why not give them the option?

I spoke about it with some of my troops, and their feeling was that it was disheartening how the service agencies would quickly discharge a wounded Soldier/Marine/Airman/Seaman/CoastGuardian. On the other hand, I can see how long a process it would be for the Services to screen who can and cannot continue service, and this delay could also delay due benefits within the VA system for those who would be deemed not suitable for service again. My guys said that some of these heroes would perhaps think 'I just gave my arm or leg or vision or mental abilities for our nation, so why would I want to remain in service?' and others perhaps would feel like they 'even after having given up so much, yet they can still carry "a" mission (any mission), but instead they are rejected after such a high sacrifice.'

How about you -what do you think?

:pat

GerryLP:cool

[melsy]

Good thread. I have 2 Purple Hearts from being a fighter pilot in Vietnam. I think the thinking has changed. Many of the Gulf War wounded are staying/going back on active duty with these new advanced prothesis.

[Tritium007]

I think what happens in many cases is the affected individual is left out of the decision making process. I believe that the process would be improved if that person, the stake holder, would have a reasonable opportunity to participate through correspondence, interviews, medical examinations, etc. There has to be clear criteria established to initiate such proceedings. My last CO was diagnosed with a rare pulminary disease and had both of his lungs removed and a lobe from two different donors transplanted for him to survive. He was retired from active service on the cross country flight to surgery. As I understand it, he has fully recovered and reapplied for his commission, and received reinstatement to active duty. The big question is where the burden of proof lies. Does the military have to prove that an individual doesn't meet the physical standard or does the individual have to prove he does? This is definitely a good topic for discussion.

Mike :pat

[SPANISHVETTS]

Not so many years ago an Officer who was injured in the like of duty could not be forced to retire solely due to his injuries. I am not sure when this changed but I am sure that was the way it was during WWI.

I believe that the Purple Heart should have degrees. I have a few in the draw and none of my injuries were severe enough to merit a discharge. I always felt like a fool wearing my ¨Hero Ribbons¨ around guys who had lost limbs or had other disabling injuries.

Back to the thread. While I was in the Hospital at Clark during Vietnam I knew several Marines that were angry because they were discharged due to their injuries. It was not Vietnam that they wanted to go back to – they wanted to go back and finish their job with their Unit regardless of where that might be. One who became a close friend had lost an arm and most of a foot. He felt like he was letting down his buddies because he got hit.


Sempri-Fi; what more can I say.:pat

[GerryLP]

...The big question is where the burden of proof lies. Does the military have to prove that an individual doesn't meet the physical standard or does the individual have to prove he does?...

Mike, I see what you mean. But I swear that it seems as if that the military powers-that-be see those physical standard a bit too unforgiving. For example, a ground pounder has to be fully able to use and control his or her limbs and have eye sight on both eyes. But they look at the wounded soldier, and say "well his left eye is no good or his foot is gone, so he no longer can carry the mission." But is that fair? I think that they should give the soldier the benefit of doubt, and allow him or her to recover. They should treat them as if they are away on TAD or TDY. Then assess their situation, and then make every effort possible to allow them to re-enter their military life if they so desire.

...– they wanted to go back and finish their job with their Unit regardless of where that might be. One who became a close friend had lost an arm and most of a foot. He felt like he was letting down his buddies because he got hit.

Spanish,

You are right! That is perhaps one the ultimate realities while in combat. Every one of these heroes, wounded or not, has expressed how the worry for their unit's members has motivated them to return, or it has caused regret for not being able to return. The cohesiveness of a particular squad is stronger than steel, and they know that even when they cannot count on our nation's leaders, citizens, or even perhaps their unit's top brass, they can count on each other. It is a very powerful thing. Perhaps even more powerful than physically distant families, girlfriends, wives, spouses, siblings, or offspring's. Their main mission is to each other, and their experiences have been written in blood.

GerryLP:cool

[Tritium007]

Gerry, you are absolutely correct. There is no questioning the honor, loyalty, and brotherhood of the fine men and women serving in these units. Although this is not necessarily my view, but that honor and loyalty can sometimes cloud their better judgement. I think the powers-that-be believe that these physical conditions may cost additional lives if the standard cannot be met out in the field. I believe that there shouldn't be the finality that comes with some of these decisions to remove someone from active duty. Periodic reevaluations for reinstatement and reassignments to service more suited to their condition would be more appropriate. That's why we have disabled vet preferences in civil service and other civilian employment incentives to hire vets. There should be a sense of loyalty towards them as well on the part of the military. Too many of these folks are forgotten and left behind by both the military and society. Medical and finacial compensations aren't enough to fulfill the souls of the really passionate vets. I wouldn't mind seeing some civil service positions eliminated and replaced with these disabled servicemen allowing them to live out their personal committment until full retirement. There is no blanket solution. I'm sure there is a large bitterness factor for some of those wounded and don't want to stay. I personally wouldn't want to be the judge though.

Mike:pat

[6 Shooter]

:pat

[GerryLP]

Gerry....Too many of these folks are forgotten and left behind by both the military and society. Medical and finacial compensations aren't enough to fulfill the souls of the really passionate vets. I wouldn't mind seeing some civil service positions eliminated and replaced with these disabled servicemen allowing them to live out their personal committment until full retirement. There is no blanket solution. I'm sure there is a large bitterness factor for some of those wounded and don't want to stay. I personally wouldn't want to be the judge though.

Mike:pat

I am not sure if parading to honor them is the only solution. Like you said, there is no blanket solution. I guess the best way we can honor them is to ensure that we take care of them. I am not talking welfare. I am proposing for the people's government to ensure that whatever the military member's sacrifices were, they're not made in vain.

A lot of us have our own particular opinion of what must be done over there to complete the mission, but either one alone will not suffice to accomplish the task. Staying the course alone won't work. Summarily pulling-out won't work either.

Perhaps committing to be the overwhelming force won't work either, but we can't just let tens of thousand of troops to make the sacrifice alone either. Maybe in the search as a nation to an assured victory, we wrongly followed the get off "cheaply" approach with such a small force that it became a slippery slope. As a result, all we did was throw money at the problem and not rely on our professional military force.

There is people suffering in these countries from chaos. And perhaps the solution would be to roll-up our sleeves and dig-in for the long haul with a commitment from our leadership to secure the country of Iraq with an overwhelming force.

GerryLP:cool

p.s. oops...I have hijacked my own thread...:L

[GerryLP]

Freedom is not free:pat






Shooter,

That can be interpreted so many ways that it hardly can communicate what you mean. :confused

GerryLP:cool