Poll result

Facts, those pesky facts. Very well illustrated point on someone we all know quite well today.
I served, (Stateside only), in the 101st Airborne division, being both an Airborne Infantryman, and later a HUEY Crew Chief in that same Airborne Division.
Doesn’t in any way qualify me to say that I was a grunt in the Vietnam War, (’60-’64 period of service), even though the war was cranking up at the time. Neither does it allow me to claim “HUEY Door Gunner/Crew Chief” status during the Vietnam war…..
I served, circumstances determined that I didn’t go overseas, and therefore offer me nothing but some cool Stateside memories and stories.
Post discharge, I have been armed and in the position of protecting “Americans”, but purely in a private concept.
Pouring all that in a pot, stirring it well, does not a Combat Veteran make.

I am still hoping to learn when Teti was engaged in combat at all.

If you served in Iraq or Afghanistan, you were at risk. That risk was not uniformly distributed, of course, but varied by MOS, actual duties performed, and location in theatre. Whether you engaged in combat with the enemy is an entirely separate matter. And that’s what is really irking me about Teti. I know, I’ve said it already and I’ve said it more than one thread at TAH but where is the evidence—aside from Teti’s “combat veteran” assertion that he engaged the enemy in combat as a civilian contractor? Am I wrong to ask this question? Are we to assume that every civilian contractor, by virtue of his working in a combat theatre, was in combat?

Hmmm… the problem here is the term “combat veteran” and its definition. I suggest that, as it is commonly interpreted, the term implies a uniformed member of the armed forces. This interpretation derives, not coincidentally, from the legal definition of that term. You can be a lawful combatant and not be a veteran.

Consider some historical examples:

A crew member on a privateer, sailing under a letter of marque and reprisal during the War of 1812, is not a veteran of that war.

A licensed regimental sutler during the Civil War or Indian Wars is not a veteran of those wars.

Members of the US Merchant Marine were famously denied veteran status after WWII for just this reason.

I’ve been a Soldier and a contractor. I do not mix or confuse the two. In fact, I have (only partly) jokingly referred to my contractor time as my “second career as a mercenary.” It’s not quite that bad, of course… a true mercenary would fight for anyone, just for the money, while the great majority of US military contractors are former members of the US armed forces and would not even remotely consider working for some power whose interests were inimical to those of the United States.

But still… if your motivation is your oath to the Constitution, and you’re wearing your country’s uniform, then you’re a veteran. If you’re not then… well, if not a mercenary, you are nevertheless something else.

More important than the specific definition is the motivation. I served in Iraq as a DA Civilian; I was a fobbit, but I served. I hid from mortars and rockets more than a few times. I consider it service, but not ‘in combat’. I take pride in my ‘service’, though, and display an IRAQ circle sticker on my car; as was handed-out to me at the USO following my return. DA Civs take an oath as part of the job. Uphold and Defend and all that or whatever. I served. I’m not a Operation New Dawn combat veteran, yet I served in Operation New Dawn. That’s how I word it.

That said, my lines are different than Teti’s, perhaps. He’s probably closer to a ‘combat veteran’, as I didn’t have a weapon. He toed the line to protect valuable assets and people critical to the Mission.

My thinking is this: If was not specifically awarded a combat patch, I was not specifically “in combat”.

Of course there are holes there – some folks deploy, stay 30 days (or whatever is minimum) then wear the combat patch. I think that’s sorta pushing it, but it’s authorized.

Then I think ‘why’ he claims combat veteran. Had he claimed it in humility that’s one thing; but to use it in a gray area for the purpose, or to support credentials towards a career is another – that last bit is where I think Teti’s crossed the line. My line. My personal line.

I respect Teti for his service, and I enjoy his show. I’d love to drink a beer with the guy if for no other reason than his Military Service – however he defines it. Big difference, IMO, in how Teti words his experience than how Canterburry did his.

…that’s sorta what contractors do – Assumptions: he wasn’t the contractors running the mail room on the FOB; He was a contractor escorting stuff and junk or whatever.

Good question, though.

@11 ans 13. Well, thank you both for the response. I do appreciate it b/c I was beginning to think that all others here were of an entirely different mind and were being nice in not telling me to STHU already. Now, I can shut up–in peace.

The hardest part is that we can verify overseas military combat service. There’s some kind of paper trail that we can audit. “Combat service” is a nebulous thing with contractors, and to be honest, it seems to me that outside of Teti’s resume for his show, a contractor has a vested interest to be able to declare “combat experience” for the sake of professional credibility.

Those contracts aren’t going to land themselves! So with contractors, we don’t have a ready-made system by which to gauge the honesty behind what is said.

On the other hand, Teti definitely has points in his bio that either mischaracterize service (“OEF/OIF veteran”), or inflate what was less than interesting (PSD! In Israel! There I was, knee deep in olive fields, staring down angry Gazans with rocks you could paint and make love to!). That’s not even touching “I was a counter terrorist with super secretness and that’s all I can tell you.”

Again, why isn’t legitimate Force Recon / SF service enough? All of that makes him as qualified as one can be for a stupid Discovery show. For crying out loud it’s the same network that pushes Anabaptists in Central Pennsylvania as being somehow sordid and interesting.

@19 (Hondo) I don’t think those rules are right. At least they weren’t when I was in Iraq in 08-09. We weren’t issued our combat patches until after we’d been there 30 days. And even then we weren’t allowed to wear combat patches that weren’t authorized via memo.

This leads to some odd situations, like the following:
I cannot wear the 172nd patch, even though I was attached to them for 60 days was awarded my CAB by them.
I can wear the 20th Engineer Brigade patch even though I never did any missions with them (we were at Balad together for 30 days while we RIP’ed in and they RIP’ed out).
I cannot wear the 555th Engineer Brigade patch even though we did crowd control and route clearance them (they replaced the 20th Engineers).
I can wear the 10th Mountain patch because my company command was attached to them, but I never did any missions with them.
I can wear the 25th ID patch because I was with them at Warhorse for the majority of my deployment (and did the majority of my missions with).
I cannot wear the Special Operations Command (even though my battalion was attached to them), but I can wear the Special Forces patch (even though I never did any missions with them).

On the last deployment to Afghanistan (2010), my unit was not authorized to wear any combat patches other than the USACAPOC patch, because they “supporting” but weren’t attached to units. The rules around combat patches has gotten crazy. Or at least they had been.

Which really has nothing to do with the whole “Combat Veteran vs. OIF/OEF Veteran” debate going on here…or at least not much.

I played the ALARACT game in Iraq once (about the Army Combat Shirts). Even had a copy of it on me, and let’s just say that when a CSM tells you to push, he doesn’t have to give you a reason but can sure wax eloquent about “the way things should be”.

The truth is, the only time I’ve cared about combat patches was at WLC when I could rotate through my collection for the pompous slick sleeve E-6 92A who was teaching the CQB lane. Which was an asshole move on my part, but it was funny.

I wasn’t OPCON’ed to 172nd, just woke up one morning to our OIC saying “Pack your shit you are going to Hammer”. Then for the next 60 days we did stuff and things and got blown up.

Its all a side show anyway. Who is a combat veteran is the real question. Is some 92A who’s deployed to JBB Balad a combat veteran because he was rocketed one day? How about the 11B who spends his entire deployment at some JCOP training local national’s but never sees any action? How about a contractor who is in a firefight while employed by the Federal Government (doing the jobs they don’t trust Joe to do)?

Its splitting hairs.and it all feeds into this cycle of stolen valor. It’s not enough to have served, and served well and honorably. You have to been a combat veteran. You have to have seen the shit. You have to have drunk the blood of your enemies from a chalice made from their skulls…all because we do try and split these hairs.

It honestly should be enough that men and women serve. All the other stuff, the schools, the pins, the ribbons, etc shouldn’t matter.

Eh, I’m starting my old man get off my lawn back in my day speech so I’ll stop because showing signs of senility will not get me promoted.

But yeah, bring back the quite professional.

Seems like this was very skewed due to his drama queen Facebook antics.

It’s quite clear that contractors are disparaged here, but just like the military their duties vary. I wouldn’t be surprised if some contractors were getting more than a lot of the military. Due to having been in two campaigns the term veteran is fitting regardless of military status.

The problem here is with us redefining the term veteran as only applying to former military members. When we do that stuff like this happens even though combat veteran of OIF/OEF is completely factual. If he claimed military combat veteran of OIF/OEF that would be something else.

The devil is in the details and only defining veteran as a former service member is wrong.

SGT Kane, “It honestly should be enough that men and women serve. All the other stuff, the schools, the pins, the ribbons, etc shouldn’t matter.” True dat. You bring up some excellent points, especially where combat service is concerned. By the definition of some, my service in Iraq ten years ago makes me a “combat veteran” of OIF, while my current deployment on a brigade staff barely (or doesn’t) qualify me as a “combat veteran” of OEF. I’ve earned the campaign medals and other goodies for both, but occasional incoming is a far cry from actual firefights. Most of us are guilty of playing up the job skills and accolades earned by ourselves and others. I used to call it the “Infantry mindset” or being “badge happy”. That E-5 sporting a Ranger tab and four badges might not be as high-speed as we think, though, while that SFC in S-4 could be a squared away Soldier and NCO. The same goes for a former member of, let’s say, Force Recon and Special Forces. While Teti’s military service may have been that of a physically fit, adaptable, and intelligent Soldier, what makes him any better than those of us here who did much more than mere training while in uniform? Even the least glorious MOS fills a vital function in the Army. I agree that Teti’s status as a “combat veteran” is a matter of semantics, and perhaps Reaperman in comment #26 is right. Like him, I simply don’t like Teti’s responses to the original thread, though my opinion of his service differs slightly (FWIW I was one of the 197 that voted for the second option). At the end of the day, though, regardless of motivation and intent, Teti decided to forego continued military service while still able-bodied and capable of serving, for the sake of becoming a contractor. Others here have stated it better, but while he was collecting a big paycheck working for a private company, others were making chump change while wearing the uniforms of our nation. In short, yeah, Teti’s military service was filled with schools… Read more »