Thank You for Being Expendable

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/26/opinion/thank-you-for-being-expendable.html

by whyenot • 12 years ago

51 52 12 years ago

klunger• 12 years ago

"If you want to know what the price of freedom looks like, go to a V.A. waiting room — wheelchairs, missing limbs, walking wounded, you get all of the above."

That quote just really drove it home for me.

icambron• 12 years ago

That's actually the price of warfare. We have a habit of just pretending everyone's being killed and mutilated for freedom because it's a lot more comfortable that way. Makes their sacrifice seem worthwhile and not just a horrifying waste. Maybe in some cases it's even true, but it's not true in general, and I'd even go so far as to say it hasn't been true of the last, say, 60 years of US history.

We should take care of our vets, but we should also stop making so fucking many of them.

touristtam• 12 years ago

Completely the opposite with me. No matter what those soldier may have thought before enrolling, freedom is not why they have suffered personal losses. Just merely an excuse for an aggressive foreign policy from their government.

Maybe this generation will have a bigger impact on the general US population to not support this kind of war during the current century. Or maybe North America needs to have it own internal armed conflict to learn that war is a bad bad thing.

wmgries6• 12 years ago

Why don't we just pay for veterans to go to normal hospitals? Why on earth would we think these government run hospitals would work?

Nacraile2• 12 years ago

The US has the highest per-capita health care expenditure in the OECD, by a substantial margin, despite being the only OECD country which does not provide universal health care.

Why on earth would we think that private sector hospitals work any better?

wmgries6• 12 years ago

I've never heard of anyone being forced to wait for weeks for this kind of stuff in a normal hospital in the US. Government run health systems overseas have well documented wait lists.

Furthermore, privately run systems should be more efficient because consumers have a choice. Don't like your current doctor? Go get a new one. To be clear, I don't object to government funding these things, just running them. Monopolies are bad.

gnaritas6• 12 years ago

Why on earth would we think these government run hospitals would work?

It's a silly question, why do you assume they wouldn't? Government doesn't equal bad.

venomsnake• 12 years ago

Just for a start veterans have specific injuries (both mental and physical) that general hospital will be hard to have the expertise to deal with.

We are talking about people that freak out/enter combat mode when they see a garbage can or a box near the road. Why - because for them for 10 years it has been a real and present danger. And those are the very mild cases.

seizethecheese• 12 years ago

If the VA didn't exist hospitals would have the appropriate resources, especially those near bases.

jotm• 12 years ago

They would simply not get insurance because of the high risk of expensive injuries.

patmcc• 12 years ago

>>Why on earth would we think these government run hospitals would work?

Because lots of nations have successful government-run hospitals?

maxxxxx2• 12 years ago

I don't understand why there is a VA. Just give them Medicare or another health insurance. I can see a need for facilities that can treat combat specific injuries but I guess most veterans can be served by the regular health system.

zitterbewegung• 12 years ago

Name a health care provider that would cover them then? Which health care provider would you want to take that kind of assumed risk?

nostromo• 12 years ago

Medicare

maxxxxx2• 12 years ago

Medicare for example.

gnaritas6• 12 years ago

Name a health care provider that would cover them then?

Any of them would, it's required by law; there are no more pre-existing conditions.

rdl• 12 years ago

The VA predates the rest of the medical care run by the federal government. When it works, it is actually fairly cost effective. They are actually going the other direction on this -- trying to more closely link active duty and VA care, although there are some commercial providers in the active duty system, especially for dependents.

yaddayadda• 12 years ago

[I have used VA healthcare, I have several friends who work for the VA Health Administration, and I have many friends who use VA healthcare.]

When the VA system works it treats the whole person. For example, if you have PTSD it may exacerbate conditions that may appear unrelated. In theory, all care-givers (MDs, therapists, etc) meet about an individual vet's conditions on a regular basis (every 2 weeks if memory serves correctly) to identify and develop longer term treatments for co-morbid conditions (I can only confirm this for one VA hospital).

Even if there weren't an attempt to treat co-morbid conditions, there are so many combat specific injuries that it might be a moot point. For example, I have a friend who is a Vietnam Vet that suffers from agent orange related illnesses; these illnesses exasperate more common conditions, namely diabetes. Throw in PTSD and anxiety, and now you have someone dealing with such a plethora of different symptoms - symptoms that are common in the veteran community but not in other communities. Would a typical GP have the expertise to handle this? Most likely not.

bane• 12 years ago

I have a feeling something like this is coming. The government is running too many slightly different health plans right now. Some future President or Congressional leader will likely run on "eliminating waste" or some such and consolidate them all...likely weakening or strengthening the lot of them (depending on the politics of the day) when it happens.

analyst74• 12 years ago

It's strange to me that people still held the view that soldiers fight for their countrymen's freedom. It's not like Vietnam or Iraq were on their way to invade America in any foreseeable future.

Wars are fought for profit of the few, lives of soldiers are just part of the expense, which they try to minimize through propaganda and false promise of future care.

wwwwwwwwww• 12 years ago

talk to any soldier about this and they will acknowledge that america's security is not directly threatened in todays world, and believe that the military mostly acts as a "preventative force" to keep it that way.

chondos• 12 years ago

You are taking the term fight for their countrymen's freedom way too literally. Do you think that generals and military surgeons actually fought (as in combat) anyone at any time? Just because an individual did not see combat, this does not mean that they are not considered to be fighting. The spirit of the armed forces is that they their efforts either in training, studying, or actual combat are all part of a unified effort or fight.

The for freedom part goes back to the founding. The primary mission of the military is to protect the homeland from invasion and occupation. Though they do other things when there is no direct threat, this is still the primary mission today. Just by their presence we remain free. Do you think if the military was abolished tomorrow that we would be free people 2 years from now?

To your examples, Vietnam was fought because communism was seen as in indirect threat to American freedom. Much the same as the goal of overthrowing Saddam Hussein was to start a ripple effect of democracy throughout the middle east. Of course with such uncivilized people, with their constant conflicts and bloodshed over religion, stability and prosperity was never realized. The thought though was that democracy and personal freedom (at least in the west) has generally caused countries to become more prosperous, civil and less threatening to other countries freedom and sovereignty.

jseliger• 12 years ago

Brilliant article. I would add that Tom Ricks's book The Generals is an excellent complement to this piece (I wrote more about it here: http://jseliger.wordpress.com/2012/12/18/the-generals-tom-ri... ). Since Korea we have developed the habit of lauding generals who lose wars, instead of finding other duties to them.

A general or Secretary of Defense who screws up gets sweet six-figure "retirement" and widespread respect. He is at little if any risk of personal harm. A private who screws up, or just gets screwed by the system, dies.

It is worth contemplating what that asymmetry means.

tcopeland• 12 years ago

"The Generals" also shows up on the UK Ministry of Defence reading list (in the "partners" section http://militaryprofessionalreadinglists.com/reading_list/19-...), so his suggestions are getting some official showing in military circles.

D9u• 12 years ago

"War is a racket" by 2 time CMOH recipient Maj. Gen. Smedley D. Butler (USMC) details how corporate interests profit from warfare.

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html

When I went through infantry training at Ft Benning I learned that the term "infantry" referred to a nation's ability to field soldiers, which is dependent upon the birth rate.

More infants = more soldiers.

Thus, by extrapolation, soldiers, especially infantrymen, are considered to be expendable.

Sadly, bureaucracy has allowed the care given to our veterans to fall short of expectations, but for many of those with military experience such treatment is par for the course.

ilaksh• 12 years ago

Kind of a downer man. I'm trying to have a BBQ over here. Maybe talk about depressing things after my day off.

autodidakto• 12 years ago

Please don't be alarmed by the fallout of war. The President (past, present, and future) wants you to go back to shopping and sportsball.

Thank You for Being Expendable

Related Stories