You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Home Front: Politix
Time: Purple Hearts for Psychic Scars?
2008-06-09
I wonder what Time is going to do with the idea of a Purple Brain. Maybe play the useful fool in order to use it to milk the cash cow again by going through another litany of reasons against a war they don't seem to understand?

Yeah, this stuff can tough. That's why it's called war. But the vast majority get around/over it and get back into society. Liberal rags like Time using it to sow misplaced doubt doesn't help.


For every solder killed or physically wounded in Iraq or Afghanistan, some 10 others come home psychically scarred. The Pentagon has diagnosed roughly 40,000 troops with post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) since 2003, and tens of thousands of others are dealing with it on their own or ultimately will be diagnosed. With the war taking such a heavy psychological toll, some inside the military are starting to ask if men and women who become mentally injured in the service of their country deserve the Purple Heart. To some traditionalists, the idea is absurd on its face, but it is not a theoretical debate - the Pentagon is now weighing a change in policy that would make PTSD, in a term only the military could invent, a "qualifying wound" for the medal.
Did it occur to you guys at Time that the only reason this is being considered is because there is an effort going on right now to destigmatize mental illness? Whether or not they actually go through with this nonsense makes little difference as long as the idea gets out.
The Purple Heart, created by General George Washington in 1782, has historically been limited to those physically wounded or killed in combat. The Army classifies PTSD as an illness, not an injury, which means it doesn't qualify for the honor. But John Fortunato, an Army psychologist at Fort Bliss, Texas, argued in early May that PTSD affects soldiers by physically damaging their brains, making the condition no different than conventional wounds. Soldiers with PTSD often have suffered as much "as anybody with a traumatic brain injury, as anybody with a shrapnel wound," he said. Their ineligibility for a Purple Heart "says this is the wound that isn't worthy, and it is." Advocates of the change like Fortunato believe it would help encourage soldiers with symptoms of PTSD, many of whom are afraid of being blacklisted and having their chances for promotion limited, seek out the help they need.

The suggestion has garnered high-level Pentagon attention. "It's an interesting idea," Defense Secretary Robert Gates recently noted. "I think it is clearly something that needs to be looked at." The Defense Department's awards advisory group, which previously ruled that PTSD doesn't merit a Purple Heart, is now studying the issue again.

The traditional veterans' groups don't want the rules loosened. "We vehemently disagree" that PTSD is a physical wound that warrants a Purple Heart, says Joseph Palagyi, the national adjutant of the Military Order of the Purple Heart, who earned the medal in Vietnam on June 2, 1968. "We feel that the purity of the medal must be maintained." The American Legion agrees. "Unless PTSD crosses the line and is shown to be an injury - with a direct relationship to the enemy - we support the current policy," says Phil Riley of the Legion. Michael Wysong, the director of national security issues for the Veterans of Foreign Wars, likens PTSD to the Gulf War syndrome that afflicted troops following that 1991 war. "Not to diminish the illness or effects of PTSD," he says, "but it is the VFW's belief that awarding the Purple Heart for PTSD is not consistent with the original purpose and would denigrate the medal."

The Army surgeon general didn't venture into this minefield when TIME offered him the opportunity. "They haven't asked my opinion about it," Lieutenant General Eric Schoomaker said May 27 of the Pentagon panel reviewing the question. When pressed on the question - shouldn't the Army's top doc have an opinion on whether or not PTSD warrants a Purple Heart? - he punted. "Whether or not a medal should be awarded is not in my purview," he said. "The senior operational commander in the Army needs to decide that." It's evidence of the sensitivity of the issue that even the army's senior doctor suggests a second opinion.
Posted by:gorb

#7  People need to face it. Killing another human, even a Jihadi (or for the WW2 bunch, a Nazi) or having them attempt to kill you flips a fundamental switch inside a person, and it takes some people a lot of time to adjust, and some never adjust well.

Thats why "seeing the elephant" is such a watershed in a soldier's life. You do NOT know how you will react until you are there and in the moment.

Posted by: OldSpook   2008-06-09 17:43  

#6  I think there's some gray areas here that need to be discussed. I'd give a guy that suffered brain damage as the result of an IED a purple heart. I would NOT give a guy that has a series of behavior modifications (PTSD) as the result of combat a purple heart. My dad was an artillery spotter during WWII. He came back with some pretty serious problems, but worked his way through them on his own. My year in Vietnam left me with some problems (not as serious as OS) that lasted three or four years after I returned. I think that, in many cases, it's too hard to diagnose the exact problem, whether it's brain damage or behavior modification. Things like this will eventually have to be decided on a case-by-case basis.
Posted by: Old Patriot   2008-06-09 14:50  

#5  Difficult indeed. Part of the problem is that we are seeing a huge increase (compared to previous conflicts) in brain injuries, mostly due to IEDs. Ironically. our better armor is part of the problem since many of these wonderful soldiers and Marines would have been killed in earlier wars.

Brain damage often doesn't show up on physical tests but has to be inferred due to behavioral etc. symptoms.
Posted by: lotp   2008-06-09 14:41  

#4  Vets with PTSD have earned the award, but I doubt they want the label, at least I wouldn't. And I wonder about those who do. Perhaps it would help some and I'd be happy to see them get it if it would help, but it's a slippery slope. Difficult problem.
Posted by: Nimble Spemble   2008-06-09 09:39  

#3  No No No.

I didn't earn one putting my body on the line (thoguh I do have scars from combat, its not enemy action), and I sure as hell don't want one for PTSD (which did cause me enough problems to be homeless for a while a year after I got back and got out the first time).

Posted by: OldSpook   2008-06-09 09:30  

#2  agree with the VFW guys - it's not a physical wound. It is a recognizable mental ailment though, and needs adequate help and treatment, just not a PH. More self-esteem from the "everyone should get a beret" gang?
Posted by: Frank G   2008-06-09 08:45  

#1  I am against that designation. All his life, my dad was hyper-reactive when amoken suddenly. That was caused by his service with the navy, during WW2, when vessels were being torpedoed. He treated it as an aspect of personality. Recognition of stress as a cause of permanent disability, is a real can of worms. I would bet that a Tylenol would solve most problems.
Posted by: McZoid   2008-06-09 08:39  

00:00