Another Word on the Black and Purple Hearts
Monday, February 2, 2009 at 5:16AM Not surprisingly, there are a lot of passionately held views on the subject of Purple Hearts for combat stress. But I was a little bit surpised, admittedly, that the controversy appears no more faint with respect to my recent New York Times Op/Ed suggesting an alternate decoration for combat veterans suffering from post-traumatic stress. It seems there are still many people out there...mostly veterans unfortunately...who bitterly oppose honoring such men and women. I surely know it now; they've written me letters and said so in no uncertain terms. To them, there is really no more I can say. But to the many others who wrote in response to this piece, I have noticed a few trends, and I'll take a moment to adress them now.
1) The most common concern about my suggestion was the color "BLACK."
Some thought red would be better. Some asked that we make it royal blue. Others didn't care what color it turned out to be so long as it wasn't black. The connotation of a "black" heart didn't set well with folks.
I think that's a fair observation. I should point out, first of all, that I have nothing to do with the decision-making process. (That seemed unclear to a number of people.) It was just an idea or a topic for discussion. However, I will say that the "black heart" was intended as a metaphor...not a literal suggestion for the design or title of a medal. That said, I will defend the metaphor inasmuch as I have certainly had a black heart from my experiences in war and I am very familiar with a lot of other veterans who feel the same way. So I do not think the metaphor is necessarily inaccurate. I am, foremost, interested in seeing soldiers/veterans recognized for the invisible wounds of war. Details beyond that are of little interst to me.
2) Fakers: What do we do about them?
I have had a lot of experience dealing with shirkers in my military time, so I know this concern is valid. I cannot, however, support denying the honor of those genuinely struggling veterans because of a few other imposters. My suggestion to at least mitigate this problem would be...INITIALLY...to grant decorations (and whatever associated benefits) only to those veterans who have been diagnosed and given a disability rating of 100% for post-traumatic stress. Those who have worked with or even met a service member with 100% PTS know it's legitimate. You might be able to fake 50%, but it's a heck of a lot harder to fake 100%. This is merely a suggestion for an INITIAL plan. As technology and science improve and can assist in evaluating patients more accurately, perhaps that plan could be adjusted.
3) No one will wear it!
The stigma surrounding PTS is strong, even stronger than I suspected before all those angry letters poured in. As one Vietnam veteran wrote to me: "IT'S NOT AN INJURY...IT'S A DISEASE" (in all caps just like that). I suspect the very source of this stigma is from within the military itself. The rest of the country takes its cues from them. So to get the military to officially honor those with post-traumatic stress, to get them to acknowledge that the PTS is a consequence of battle, I think would be a good step in the right direction. From there, the country would begin to follow. Whether or not individuals wear the decoration is much less important...at least in the beginning.
4) What about the Purple Heart. Should we just give up the struggle on that?
Let me be clear on my position on the Purple Heart. I support issuing the Purple Heart to the sufferers of combat stress. I think they should get the medal. But I also believe that as long as those who decide this matter live within an environment that is largly suspicious of PTS...it will never happen. I just don't want to see another fifty years roll by without recognizing these men and women. So I suggested another solution. Frankly, the medal itself is just a token. It is a symbol of honor. But it is just that...a symbol. Veterans with PTS need good quality care a lot more than they need a medal. But I do think the central obstacle to getting them the real care they need is this very stigma surrounding PTS. So by forcing the issue about the medal, Black, Purple, Red, or Blue, we will hopefully force the stigma out and get those service members the care they need and very much deserve.
5) Other invisible wounds like Agent Orange and Gulf War Syndrome: Should they get the Purple Heart, too?
Obviously.
(Despite all this talk of "enemy" action being a requirement for the Purple Heart, there are quite a number of cases of guys who got wounded by friendly fire and still received the medal. It's easy to be rigid from afar and say "that's not right" but when you're looking down on one of your own men who, for instance, had his leg shot up by a 25mm chain gun from another American unit, it's a lot more difficult to be so harsh. So with that as a precedent, in thinking about the "other" invisible wounds meriting honor, I say again...obviously...they do.
6) Should these decorations be retroactive? How far back? Vietnam? Korea? WWII?
I have no idea. Decorating everyone who deserves it sounds good but difficult. I don't know the feasibility of it. But just because it would be hard to figure the old cases doesn't mean we shouldn't work hard to properly handle the new ones.
END
Reader Comments (2)
Make your own life time more simple get the credit loans and everything you need.
For the help please use http://www.google.com