The new caste system of wounded troops

In 1993, President Clinton began his term by finding ways to save money for his planned social programs. The first place he looked (like all Democrats) was at the military. He began by slashing manpower, offering early retirement and buy-outs. Two years later he discovered that he’d slashed manpower too deeply and asked some of those he bought out to return.

The next thing to suffer cuts was military health care. They moved 65-year-olds from military healthcare to Medicare. Well, it seems this past January Democrats started cutting military health care again – by differentiating between combat-related injuries and non-combat injuries. From Blackfive and Ace of Spades, I picked up this story from the LA Times;

In a little-noticed regulation change in March, the military’s definition of combat-related disabilities was narrowed, costing some injured veterans thousands of dollars in lost benefits — and triggering outrage from veterans’ advocacy groups.

The Pentagon said the change was consistent with Congress’ intent when it passed a “wounded warrior” law in January. Narrowing the combat-related definition was necessary to preserve the “special distinction for those who incur disabilities while participating in the risk of combat, in contrast with those injured otherwise,” William J. Carr, deputy undersecretary of Defense, wrote in a letter to the 1.3-million-member Disabled American Veterans.

The group, which has called the policy revision a “shocking level of disrespect for those who stood in harm’s way,” is lobbying to have the change rescinded.

To say the least. The Democrats claim this wasn’t their intent;

Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), chairman of the Armed Services Committee, said the Pentagon’s “more conservative definition” limited benefits for some veterans. “That was not our intent,” Levin said in a statement.

He added: “When the disability is the same, the impact on the service member should be the same no matter whether the disability was incurred while training for combat at Ft. Hood or participating in actual combat in Iraq or Afghanistan.”

Given Democrats’ past behavior, it’s difficult to believe that wasn’t their intent.

Blackfive quotes a source that wrote him; Bush-appointee David Chu, the Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel “hates EVERYTHING to do with military health care, and the costs.  So he essentially tries to screw us at every opportunity.”  Regardless of who is responsible, it’s detestable.

The example in the article is one Marine Corporal who has been attacked by IEDs twice, yet he’s not considered a combat-related injury. Honestly, i don’t care if he was wounded in an IED attack or fell into a foxhole on a training assault range – the fact remains that he was doing his duty when he was injured. He was preparing for combat – which is dangerous in itself.

I’ve seen people permanently injured and even killed while training because that’s the nature of the business. If the military wants people to train like they’ll fight, they need to do away with these distinctions. Daily I engaged in activities that were dangerous at the first step, that I might not have engaged in if I knew I was going to be penalized for doing that in a combat climate. A broken leg, a shattered pelvis, a missing hand remains the same no matter how it occurred. The cost to the servicemember for the rest of their life remains constant.

My wife’s friend, a nurse, was killed in a mortar attack after finishing her PT session in the middle of a military compound in Iraq. If she had only been injured, would she have been penalized for not being engaged in a firefight when she was injured?

There’s already a medal to distiguish combat injuries from non-combat injuries. I’m sure any Purple Heart awardee would like to see someone injured similarly under peaceful conditions paid the same for the same type of injury.

Category: Support the troops